Skip to main content

Full text of "The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans"

See other formats


Religious Attitudes 

of the 


Translated from the German of 

Professor Hans F. K. Gunther 


Vivian Bird 

in collaboration with 

Roger Pearson, M.Sc. (Econ). 



"The nobly born must nobly meet his fate." 

"Courage leads to heaven, fear to death." 

"There they stood . . . the immortals who are the source of all our blessings." 

Homer: Odyssey 

The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans 


author's foreword 

Chapter One 

Chapter two 

chapter three 

Chapter four 

Chapter five 

Chapter Six 

Chapter Seven 

Chapter eight 





to the Sixth German Edition 

I HOPE that the re-appearance of this work after almost thirty years, may help the 
younger generation to give more attention to the religious history of the whole of the 
Indo-European area, in contrast to previous generations, for a better knowledge of the 
Indo-European world will lead the West (to which North America belongs), towards self- 
realisation. Heraclitus, as Aristotle reported (Concerning the Parts of Animals, I, 5, 645), 
instructed strangers visiting him, who hesitated on his threshold, to draw closer to him 
with the words: "Enter, for here the Gods also dwell!" May this work, in its present 
edition, express a similar invitation. 

If, in our era of the "Decline of the West", the last remnants of the Western Indo- 
European peoples are submerged due to the dearth of true-blooded Nordics, then 
nevertheless the last few survivors will retain that same Indo-European conviction which 
supported and inspired the "last Romans" (Romanorum ultimi), who witnessed the 
conversion of the aristocratic Roman republic into the "de-Romanised" empire — the 
proud belief in inflexible and unyielding courage before destiny, which will be portrayed 
in this work as characteristically Indo-European, and above all Nordic — an ideal which 
Horace also described in the words: 

Quocirca vivite fortes, 

Fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus! 

(Sermones, II, 2, 135/36) 


Bad Heilbrunn; Early Spring 1963. 

Chapter One 

Freedom is where you can live, as pleases a brave heart; where you can live 
according to the customs and laws of your fathers; where you are made 
happy by that which made your most distant ancestors happy. 
E. M. Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Soldier and Warrior, 1813. 

IN this work I want to advance some reflections on the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans 
— that is to say, the Indo-European speaking peoples originating from a common Bronze 
Age nucleus — who have always exerted a significant influence on the government and 
spirit of predominantly Nordic races. 1 Just as by comparing the structure of the Indian, 
Persian, Sacaean, Armenian, Slavic and Baltic languages, and of the Greek, Italian, Celtic 
and Teutonic dialects, we can reach a conclusion as to a common or primal Indo- 
European language, approximating to the latter part of the early Stone Age, in the same 
way, an examination of the laws and legal customs of the different peoples of Indo- 
European language reveals a primal Indo-European feeling for law. Similarly, from a 
comparison of the religious forms of these peoples we can identify a particular religious 
attitude emanating from the Indo-European nature — a distinctive behaviour of Indo- 
European men and people towards the divine powers. 

So it is that certain common religious attitudes, which originally were peculiar to all 
peoples of Indo-European language, reveal the identity of an Indo-European religiosity. 
But since in fact all Indo-European nations represented different types moulded on the 
spiritual pattern of the Nordic race, the origin of these common religious attitudes may be 
identified in a religiosity which is characteristically Nordic, emanating from the spiritual 
nature of the Nordic race. 3 

It is fortunate that for our knowledge of this Nordic religiosity, we do not have to rely 
solely upon Teutonic religious forms, 4 for the information we possess about the Teutonic 
forms of belief is regrettably inadequate. It is all the more incomplete as it is derived 
from a late period in the development of these forms, which had already been influenced 
by religious ideas from Hither- Asia, from the Mediterranean basin and from the Celtic 
west of Europe, where the Druids had begun to distort the ancient Indo-European 
religiosity of the Celts so that they no longer bore a purely Nordic stamp. The Teutonic 
Gods, the Aesir (cf. Oslo, Osnabruck, in High German: Ansen, cf. Anshelm, Ansbach), 
had already absorbed the Vanir who had spread from south-east Europe (F. R. Schroder: 
Germanentum und Alteuropa, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, XXII, 1934, p. 
187), without thoroughly re-interpreting them in a purely Teutonic spirit. Likewise, from 
south-east Europe and Hither- Asia, the God Dionysos had been accepted among the 
Olympian Gods without being fully re-interpreted, even being found in Homer, and only 
later becoming a native blond God instead of an alien, dark-haired one. The pre-Christian 

Teutons have with justice been compared with the Achaeans, who were their nearest 
relatives, and it can be shown that much that the Hellenes incorporated into their belief 
and religiosity in post-Homeric times was more or less alien to the Indo-European spirit, 
as for example the Orphic mysteries. Thus late on in their period of pagan development 
the Teutons had accepted much that was contradictory to the Indo-European nature. What 
non-Indo-European or non-Teutonic characteristics have been imparted to the Teutonic 
God Odin (Wodan, Wuotan)? Odin, with his strange blend of "loftiness and deception", 
is undoubtedly no longer the ideal example of an Indo-European or Teutonic God, and 
his worship is no longer characteristic of the Indo-European or the original Teutonic 
religion. Already one perceives in him the voice of an alien, non-Nordic race. 

One must ask how much of Odin's character can be explained from Teutonic folk belief, 
how much is later poetical embellishment, and how much reaches back, as with Zeus or 
Jupiter, into antiquity and the Indo-European conception of the "Father of the Heavens". 
We must not overlook the fact, stressed by Andreas Heusler in Germanentum (1934, pp. 
95-106 and cf. also Erik Therman: Eddan och dess Odestragik, 1938, pp. 65, 105, 106) 
that "the Edda mythology is largely a Norwegian-Icelandic poetical creation of the 
Viking era", elaborated by the poets who dwelt at the courts of local Norwegian princes 
during the late pagan and early Christian era, at a time when many Teutons were 
uprooted from their native soil and exposed to alien ideas. According to Heusler, Odin is 
a "new creation of Teutonic religious phantasy", and above all, a God of war and of the 
Viking princes, warriors and skalds. However, as a war God, Odin is an incalculable 
force to reckon with, "capable of deceit", as R. L. M. Derolez informs us (De Godsdienst 
der Germanen, 1959, p. 79). 

The worship of Odin (Wotan or Wuotan in the High German form) spread from west 
Scandinavia during the warlike Folk Wandering and Viking era to the Vandals and 
Langobards, and to the Saxons in Lower Saxony and in England, but it always 
predominantly appealed to the local princes and their retinue and to the skalds of the 
princes' courts, to whom the war God was also the God of poetry. Perhaps it is the name 
which is the unique feature of Odin that reaches back into Indo-European antiquity, for 
its root is derived from the Indo-European word vat meaning "to be spiritually excited", 
and as such it is still preserved in Sanskrit, in old Iranian and in Latin, where it 
corresponds to the word vates, meaning a seer or a poet. 

The concept of Odin-Wodan appears at its highest form in the grandiose Edda mythology 
of the twilight of the Gods, the end of the world, Ragnarok, but it is an expression more 
of poetry than belief. The yeoman freeholders on their hereditary farms, who formed the 
majority of the Teutonic peoples, were never at ease with the cult of Odin or Wodan 
(Karl Helm: Wodan; Ausbreitung und Wanderung seines Kults, Giessener Beitrage zur 
deutschen Philologie, Vol. LXXXV, 1946; R. L. M. Derolez: De Godsdienst der 
Germanen, 1959, pp. 79 et seq.). According to Erik Therman (op. cit., pp. 23, 77, 106), 
many sagas of the Gods of the Edda and also of Odin do not belong to the folk belief of 
the Teutons, but instead are an expression of the ideals and concepts of the Viking 
nobility and of the local North Teutonic princes. 

One must above all bear in mind, when dealing with the figure of Odin, what Jan de 
Vries has written in The Present Position of Teutonic Religious Research (Germanische 
Monatsschrift, Vol. XXIII, 1951, pp. 1 et seq.): 

"Proceeding solely from the sources of Teutonic religious history, research 
will never arrive at conclusive results concerning the nature of Teutonic 
religion: for illumination of Teutonic belief and religious attitudes, it will 
be necessary to return again and again to Indo-European religion and 

Georges Dumezil has also expressed the same warning. 

The figure of Odin-Wodan does not belong to Indo-European religious history. He is the 
special God of the loosely-rooted expanding Viking Folk, and his composite personality 
stems from the late period of Teutonic paganism, and as such does not help to throw light 
on Indo-European religious attitudes. 

Again, in one's search for material to clarify this religiosity, there is little of value to be 
found in the descriptions of the religions of the Celts and the Slavs. Throughout the broad 
areas under their rule — and the Galatians penetrated as far as Asia Minor — the Celts 
formed only a thin upper layer holding sway over pre-Indo-European peoples governed 
by matriarchal family systems, whose linguistic forms deeply influenced the Celtic 
dialects, and whose spiritual beliefs transformed the original religious attitudes of the 

The religious customs and moral attitudes of matriarchal origin emanating from the 
lower, non-Celtic strata, which penetrated the religion of the Celts (Wolfgang Krause: 
Die Kelten, Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, Vol. XXIII, 1929), have been compared 
by both Marie Sjostedt, in Dieux et Hews des Celtes (1940, p. 126) and by Jan de Vries, 
in Keltische Religion (1961, p. 224), with those of primitive non-European tribes, and 
from the Indo-European point of view, the latter must be described as repellent. 

Finally, the hierarchy of the Celtic Druids, a power-seeking priestly order, was non-Indo- 
European in character, and resembled in structure the recent Brahmin system of caste- 
rule in India. 

The records of the pre-Christian religions of Slavic tribes (A. Bruckner: The Slavs, in 
Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, Vol. Ill, 1926, and Karl H. Meyer: Die Slavische 
Religion, in Carl Clemen's Die Religionen der Erde, 1927 pp. 237 et seq.) handed down 
to us by the Christian historians of the sixth century, Procopius and Jordanes, have been 
distorted by mistaken interpretation, or by writers who were hostile to the pagan Slavs, 
and they have little material of any value to offer. Arabic and Teutonic records are 
equally deficient, but something may be deduced from the morals and customs, and the 
sagas and songs which have been preserved and re-interpreted by Christianity. From 
them we receive an impression that the early Indo-Europeans worshipped their ancestors 
and believed that the houses they inhabited and the lands and animals that belonged to 

them were possessed of guardian spirits, features that were characteristic of early Latin 

Fortunately, however, the religious forms of the other Indo-European speaking peoples 
bear many details which guide us back to a more profound study of primary Indo- 
European religiosity, and in the beliefs of the early Indians, the early Persians 6 and the 
early Hellenes, one can, in my opinion, trace essentially Indo-European elements and the 
basic factors vital to grasping and understanding them. Only by comparing all these 
forms of belief — and those of the Italici must not be omitted — with the Teutons' can 
we obtain a clearer picture of Nordic-Teutonic religiosity. 

If I thus attempt to express here in words individual features of this picture, I do so in an 
endeavour to ascertain, subject to the limitations of my own knowledge (for I am not a 
scholar of religious science), not only what is primary in all the religious forms of Indo- 
European speaking peoples known to us, but also what is their purest and richest 
unfolding. My concern is not with any search for the so-called primitive in these religious 
forms, nor whether this or that higher idea is deduced from some lower stage of old Stone 
Age magical belief or middle Stone Age spirit belief (animism). I am solely interested in 
determining the pinnacles of Indo-European religion. My concern is to identify Indo- 
European religion at its most perfect and characteristic form, and in its richest and purest 
assertion — that completely spontaneous expression of the spirit in which primary Indo- 
European nature expresses itself with the greatest degree of purity. 

But when I speak of the richest unfolding of religious forms, I do not mean those eras 
characterised by a confusing multitude of ideas, which sometimes intrude upon the Indo- 
European peoples, for at these periods the primal Nordic has become permeated with 
ideas alien to his nature. On the contrary, I believe that Indo-European religious life had 
already attained heights of great richness amongst the individual Indo-European tribes in 
the Bronze Age, so that the Bronze Age Nordic experienced much of the flowering of the 
religiosity of his race. Each time this religiosity unfolded it flourished for a succession of 
centuries, indeed often up to a millenia, until a spirit alien in nature — and usually 
corresponding to a general weakening of the Nordic racial strain — permeated the 
original religious ideas of the Indo-Europeans, and then expressed in their language 
religious ideas which were no longer purely or even predominantly European. 

My aim, therefore, is to comprehend Indo-European religion in its richest and purest 
unfolding. It can be traced, for example, in Hellenic poetry from Homer to Pindar and 
Aeschylus — though strictly speaking, perhaps only up to Pindar, or, in more general 
terms, up to the fifth century before our time of reckoning — and later, with Sophocles 
and Plato, who looked back in many aspects, Indo-European religiosity again 
predominates, but now as the religiosity of individual men and not of an entire circle of 
their aristocracy. 

I shall confine myself to describing primary or essential attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, 
omitting all that they have expressed in their various languages, in their arts, and in the 
customs of their daily life in the early and middle periods of their development; for were 

one to include in a description of Indo-European religious attitudes every form to which 
they have given expression throughout their history, one would find features amongst 
them of nearly every religion. It would be easy, therefore, to quote examples of those 
forms of religion which I describe below as non-Indo-European, from the religious life of 
Indo-European peoples, especially in later times, or, in ethnological terms, in the de- 
Nordicised period. Indeed, people have even spoken in an erroneous way of a "Christian 
Antiquity". 8 What I described as Indo-European religiosity thus pertains to those periods 
in the history of the Indo-European peoples when the soul of the Nordic race could still 
express itself with sufficient vigour. 

However, I do not overlook the fact that in many instances the rich and pure unfolding of 
Indo-European religiosity was preserved and carried forward into later periods. Examples 
of this, which I will consider later, are the noble art of the Panathenaea festival 
procession on the frieze in the Parthenon of the Acropolis of Athens (Maxime Collignon: 
Le Parthenon, Vol. Ill, 1912, Table 78 et seq.; Ernst Langlotz: Phidias Probleme, 1947, 
pp. 27 et seq.; and his Schonheit und Hoheit, 1948; Reinhard Lullies: Griechische Plastik, 
1956, p. 22, Table 147 et seq.), or the noble art of the ara pads Augustae — the altar of 
peace dedicated in the year 9 B.C. under Octavianus Augustus in Rome (Giuseppe 
Moretti: L'Ara Pads Augustae, 1948; Robert Heidenreich: Die Bilder der ara pads 
Augustae, Neue Jahrbiicher fur Antike und Deutsche Bildung, Year 1, 1938, pp. 31 et 
seq.) — and likewise the carmen saeculare of the Roman poet Horace (Horatius, 
Carmina, III, 25). 

I would not regard as Indo-European every religious idea which has been found amongst 
individual Indo-European speaking peoples, but many of them were divided into racial 
strata in such a way that the rulers were predominantly men of Nordic race. Therefore, 
probably much of the preoccupation with magic and the haunting of the spirit which is 
described to us as Indo-European religious thought is in reality an expression of the 
religiosity of the lower racial stratas, the non-Nordic linguistically Indo-Europeanised 
subject people. Different peoples are often said to have a lower mythology in contrast to 
the higher mythology of the same people, and it is often the case that the lower 
mythology had no relation whatever with the higher, and that the lower stratum of the 
people found expression in one mythology and the leading stratum in another. Where 
Indo-European society consists in such racial layers of predominantly Nordic farmers, 
aristocracy and patriarchs, super-imposed on non-Nordic peoples, Indo-European 
religiosity can only be sought in the religious ideas of the upper strata. This is also proved 
by the fact that Indo-European religiosity is always directly linked with the conviction of 
the value of birth and pride in heredity, and that man has an unalterable hereditary nature 
and an inborn nobility which it is his duty to society to maintain — as is particularly 
apparent, for example, in the truly Hellenic religiosity of Pindar. 9 

It is thus important to realise, when studying the religious history of all Indo-European 
speaking peoples, that the upper stratum represented more closely the traditional ideas of 
belief. Therefore, for example, Carl Clemen's chapter on the ancient Indo-European 
Religion in his Religionsgeschichte Europas (Vol. I, 1926, pp. 162 et seq.) makes almost 
no contribution to our knowledge of Indo-European religiosity. One cannot assume 

uncritically that all the prehistoric and historic information collected from all the regions 
where the Indo-European tongue was spoken constitutes evidence of roughly equivalent 
value. More than half of what Clemen cites as Indo-European religious thought, I regard 
as the ideas of the underlayer of Indo-Europeanised peoples of non-Nordic race. 
Similarly, the descriptions of the Hellenic world of belief by the outstanding Swedish 
scholar, P. Nilson, in his Griechischer Glaube (1950), contains much which originates 
from the non-Nordic sub-strata, and does not correspond to the form of belief and 
religiosity of the ancient Hellenes of early Stone Age and Bronze Age central Europe. 
The same observation holds true for the majority of descriptions of the religious world of 

On the other hand, much which has asserted itself in Islamic Persia and in Christian 
Europe in religious life can be valued as a resurgence of Nordic Indo-European 
religiosity, as would be expected, for inherited nature will always stir against alien forms 
of belief. Thus the mysticism of the Islamised Persians, Sufism, is to be understood as a 
breakthrough by Indo-European religiosity into an alien and compulsive faith, as an 
expression of the disposition of the race-soul or "racial endowment" as described by R. 
A. Nicholson. 10 A large part of the mysticism of the Christianised West may also be 
regarded as a similar breakthrough. Among great church leaders of both Christian faiths, 
religiosity of Indo-European kind is expressed whenever they allow the innermost 
essence of their religiosity to assert itself within them completely undogmatically. I 
would also be able to describe many a feature of Indo-European religiosity in the words 
of recent German poets. Examples of Indo-European religiosity can be found in 
Shakespeare, Winckelmann, Goethe, Schiller, Holderlin, in Shelley and Keats, in Hebbel, 
Gottfried Keller and Storm, and there are many others in the literature, philosophy and 
plastic arts of the Western peoples. 11 

In his work Der Glaube der Nordmark (1936), which has passed through many editions, 
and which has also been translated into Danish and Swedish, Gustav Frenssen described 
the religiosity of the country people he knew in North Germany, having gained a deep 
insight into their minds and hearts as their pastor. Without it being the intention of the 
author, the work became a description of Indo-European religion in the rural environment 
of a North German people. H. A. Korff, in his Faustischer Glaube (1938), has attempted 
to describe the belief to which Goethe confessed in his poem Faust: 

"It is belief in life in spite of all: in spite of the knowledge of the 
fundamentally tragic character of life." (op. cit., 1938, p. 155.) 

Such a belief in life is characteristic of Indo-European religion. 

In his work Weltfrommigkeit (1941), Eduard Spranger has described the sublime 
religiosity of the great men in German spiritual life at the end of the eighteenth and the 
beginning of the nineteenth century — a fundamentally Indo-European religiosity which 
Spranger, however, sought to link with a Christianity wrested from the dogmas of the 
Church. He noticed that religious motives resounded through great German poetry and 
German idealistic philosophy, but deceived himself, overlooking the increasing 

desolation of spiritual life in Europe and North America, into assuming that these motives 
still mean a great deal to present day Germans, Europeans and North Americans. In North 
America, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) was one of the last writers to reveal a 
strong Indo-European religiosity. 

A scientific analysis of the Indo-European nature in religious life, similar to Walter F. 
Otto's analysis of Hellenic religiosity 12 has still — as far as I am aware — to be 
accomplished. There are good and there are mediocre descriptions of the forms of belief 
of individual Indo-European speaking peoples. But there is no satisfactory exposition of 
Indo-European religiosity as such, and where such a description has been attempted, it is 
often either deliberately or unconsciously measured with yard-sticks derived from the 
Jewish-Christian world. We owe it to ourselves, however, as Teutons and as Indo- 
Europeans to seek out the true nature of Indo-European religiosity. 

It would be presumptuous on my part to imagine that my observations constitute a 
decisive foundation for research into this subject. More than suggestions I cannot 
promise. But I shall indicate in what fields I hope it might be possible to find assertions 
of Indo-European religiosity in both its rich and pure form, and also where this is not 
possible. I will merely explain what I have observed in relation to questions which have 
occupied me from my youth onwards, and how I have done so. This work is therefore in 
the nature of an outline of the impressions influencing me, arising from my interest over 
many years in the Indo-European world. 

Chapter T 

hapter iwo 

LET us take several examples of ways in which Indo-European religiosity did not assert 
itself, so as to recognise later how in fact it did express itself with the greatest purity and 
freedom. I shall attempt, wherever possible, to look away from the religion of the 
individual Indo-European peoples and to describe only the common characteristic 
feelings with which the Indo-Europeans face the divine, no matter in what shape they 
imagine this divinity. If it must be described with words, then I would say: not the 
religion, nor the religions, but the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans is what I attempt to 

In the first place, it is unmistakeably evident that Indo-European religiosity is not rooted 
in any kind of fear, neither in fear of the deity nor in fear of death. The words of the 
latter-day Roman poet, that fear first created the Gods (Statius: Thebais, III, 661: primus 
in orbe fecit deos timor), cannot be applied to the true forms of Indo-European religiosity, 
for wherever it has unfolded freely, the "fear of the Lord" (Proverbs, ix. 10; Psalms, cxi. 
10) has proved neither the beginning of belief nor of wisdom. 

Fear could not arise because the Indo-European does not consider that he is the creature 
of a deity; he neither regarded himself as a "creature" nor did he comprehend the world 
as a creation — the work of a creative God with a beginning in time. To him the world 
was far more a timeless order, within which both Gods as well as men had their time, 
their place and their office. The idea of creation is Oriental, above all Babylonic, like the 
idea — coming from Iran, but not from the Indo- Aryan spirit — of the world's end, 
culminating in a judgment and the intercession of a kingdom of God, in which everything 
will be completely transformed. 

After the ageing Plato had taken over, in Timaeus, certain features of the oriental theory 
of creation, legends for the explanation of the origin of the world, his pupil Aristotle 
(Concerning the Heavens, edited by Paul Gohlke, 1958, pp. 26-27) re-established the 
Indo-European outlook: the world totality is "without becoming, it is intransitory, eternal, 
without alteration, without growth or diminution". 

The Indo-Europeans believed — revealing a premonition of the knowledge and 
hypotheses of physics and astronomy of our present day — in a succession without end 
or beginning, of world origins and world endings, in repeated twilights of the Gods and in 
renewals of the world and of the Gods in a grandiose display, exactly as is described in 
the Voluspa of the Edda. They believed in repeated cataclysms, such as the Hellenes 

1 Q 

described, upon which new worlds with new Gods would follow. A succession of world 
creations and world endings was taught by Anaximandros, Heraclitus, Empedocles and 
other Hellenic thinkers, and later by the Roman poet and thinker Lucretius. The latter (de 
rerum natura, V, 95 et seq.) expected the world to end in this fashion: 

And vet a sinsle dav suffices to o'erthrow 

A thousand ages built, this world we know. 

According to Andreas Heusler (Germanentum, 1934, pp. 95, 106 et seq.) "destruction of 
existence was a firm expectancy for the Teutons, renewal of life an uncertain 
premonition". As Erik Therman said (op. cit., pp. 64, 213) to them the world was a 
destiny — a superpowerful causal connection. 

The belief in the end, the eschatology of the East Iranian Spitama Zarathustra, which was 
linked with the belief in a coming world saviour, has been described by H. S. Nyberg 
(Die Religionen des Alten Orients, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Agyptischen 
Gesellschaft, Vol. 34, 1938, pp. 266 et seq., 231 et seq.). It subsequently penetrated into 
Judaism shortly before the time of Jesus and fully determined his message (Heinrich 
Ackermann: Jesus, Seine Botschaft und deren Aufnahme im Abendland, 1952, pp. 42 et 
seq.; Entstellung und Kldrung der Botschaft Jesu, 1961, pp. 225 et seq.). 

In Iran, the influence of Hither- Asiatic beliefs had resulted in the idea of the repeated rise 
and fall being converted into a belief in the approaching end of the world, an end of the 
world which a saviour (saoshyant) will precede and upon which judgment of the world 
will follow. Yet despite this, Indo-European thought revived to the extent that the 
Iranians did not conceive of the world as a creation, nor of God as a creator, and thus the 
feeling of being a creature enchained by the will of the creator, could not find expression. 

Still less was a religious attitude possible here, which saw in man a slave under an all- 
powerful Lord God. The submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially 
characteristic of the religiosity of the Semitic peoples. The names Baal, Moloch, Rabbat 
and others, all stress the omnipotence of the Lord God over enslaved men, his creatures, 
who crawl on their faces before him. For the Indo-Europeans the worship of God meant 
the adoration of a deity, the encouragement and cultivation of all impulses to worship, it 
meant colere with the Romans and therapeuein with the Hellenes. In the Semitic 
language the word worship comes from its root abad, which means to be a slave. Hannah 
(7 Samuel, i. 1 1) begs Jahve, the Hebrew tribal God, to give her, his slave, a son. David 
(II Samuel, vii. 20) calls himself a slave of his God, and so does Solomon (I Kings, iii. 7). 
The essence of Jahve is terror (Exodus, xxiii. 27; Isaiah, viii. 13), but this has never been 
true of the Indo-Europeans' Gods. The Hymn to Zeus of the stoic Kleanthes of Assos 
(331-233 — Max Pohlenz: Die Stoa, 1948, pp. 108 et seq., and G. Verbeke: Kleanthos 
van Assos, Verhandelingen van den koninklijke Academie vor Wetenschapen, Letteren 
en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Year XI, Nr. 9, 1949, p. 235), from 
which Paul (Acts, xvii. 28) took words to adjust himself to the Hellenic religious outlook, 
completely contradicts for example, the religiosity of the 90th Psalm. 

In Christianity the conduct of the faithful before God is freely interpreted by the term 
humilis, and hence humility, meaning literally slave mind or serving the tribe, is 
demanded as the essence of religiosity. But this is non-Indo-European in outlook, an 
after-effect of oriental religiosity. Because he is not a slave before an omnipotent God, 
the Indo-European mostly prays not kneeling nor prostrated to earth, but standing with 
his eyes gazing upward and his arms stretched out before him. 

As a complete man with his honour unsullied, the honest Indo-European stands upright 
before his God or Gods. No religiosity which takes something away from man, to make 
him appear smaller before a deity who has become all-powerful and oppressive, is Indo- 
European. No religiosity which declares the world and man to be valueless, low and 
unclean, and which wishes to redeem man to over-earthly or superhuman sacred values, 
is truly Indo-European. Where "this world" is dropped, and in its place the "other world" 
is raised to eternal good, there the realm of Indo-European religiosity is abandoned. For 
Indo-European religiosity is of this world, and this fact determines its essential forms of 
expression. As a result it is sometimes difficult for us to comprehend its greatness today, 
because we are accustomed to measuring religiosity in terms of values taken from 
decidedly non-Indo-European and mainly oriental religious life, and especially from 
Mediaeval and early modern Christianity. It follows therefore that our view of Indo- 
European religiosity must suffer in the same way as would one's view of the structure of 
the Indo-European languages if they were described in terms of characteristics 
appropriate to the Semite languages. We are today accustomed to seek true religiosity 
only in terms of the other world and to regard religiosity of this world as undeveloped or 
lacking in some aspect — a preliminary stage on the way to something more valuable. 
Thus the Jewish-Christian religious ideas transmitted to us prevent us from recognising 
the greatness of the Indo-European religiosity, so that in comparative religious studies 
Indo-European religious values are again and again represented purely scientifically as 
being less important, since the proponents of these views have unconsciously accepted 
the ideal of Oriental spiritual values as a yardstick for every religious value. This 
criticism is also applicable to Rudolf Otto's study called The Sacred (1948). Thus the 
greatness and fullness of the Indo-European world is never recognised. 

Whoever wishes to measure religiosity by the degree of man's abasement before the 
divine, or by how questionable, valueless or even tainted "this world" appears to man 
when faced with that "other world", and whoever wishes to measure religiosity by the 
degree to which man feels a cleft between a transitory body and an indestructible soul, 
between flesh (sarx) and spirit (pneuma) — whosoever seeks to do this will have to 
declare that the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans is truly impoverished and paltry. 

Gods and men are not, in the eyes of the Indo-Europeans, incomparable beings remote 
from one another, least of all to the Hellenes, to whom Gods appeared as immortal men 
with great souls (cf. Aristotle: Metaphysics, III, 2, 997b), while they believed that men, as 
well-formed shoots of noble genus, also possessed something divine, and as such could 
claim to approximate to divine stature — the "Godlike Agamemnon". In the nature of 
man himself, just as the deity wishes, lie possibilities, seemingly divine in origin, 
diogenes, and thus it is that every Indo-European people has readily tended to assume the 
incarnation of all aristocratic national values in human families, the kalok'agathia. 1 

Indo-European religiosity is not slavery, it contains none of the implorings of a 
downtrodden slave to his all-powerful lord, but comprises rather the confiding fulfilment 
of a community comprising Gods and men. Plato speaks in his Banquet (188c) of a 
"mutual community {philia) between Gods and men". The Teuton was certain of the 
friendship of his God, of the astvin or the fulltrui whom he fully trusted, and with the 

Hellenes in the Odyssey (XXIV, 514) the same certainty is found expressed in the words 
"friends of the Gods" (theoi philoi). In the Bhagavad Gita of the Indians (IV, 3) the God 
Krishna calls the man Arjuna his friend. The highest deity such as Zeus is honoured as 
"Father of the Gods and of men" — as a family father, as Zeus Herkeios, not as a despot. 
This idea is also expressed in the names of the Gods: Djaus pitar with the Indians and 
Jupiter with the Romans. The name of the Indian God Mitra, which corresponded to 
Mithra in Iran, means "friend". Mazdaism, founded by Zoroaster, called the morally 
acting man a friend of Ahura Mazda, the One Universal God, who in the era of 
Achaemenides became the God of the Persian empire. According to Plato {Laws, IV, 
716) the man of moderation and self-control is above all "a friend of God". 

To the belief in the Gods as friends there thus corresponds the Indo-European idea of 
kinship between the high-minded and morally acting man and the Gods, which is already 
found in the 9th Nemean Ode of the Theban, Pindar. This kinship rests above all on the 
view that Gods and men are bound through the same values, through truth and virtue 
(Plato: Laws, X, 899). This is also proclaimed in the aforementioned Hymn to Zeus of 
Kleanthes of Assos, in which Zeus is called the God "of many names", the God of Logos 
(Reason), Physis (Nature), Heimarmene (Destiny), and the source of all Becoming 
(Growth). Marcus Tullius Cicero, a pupil of Hellenic wisdom (de legibus, I, 25), also 
took over these ideas. From the same ideas Plato deduced (Letters, VII, 344a) that: 
"Whoever does not feel inwardly bound to the just and morally beautiful . . . will never 
fully understand the true nature of virtue and vice". 

In the Indo-European realm God is again and again regarded as Reason ruling through 
world phenomena. Thus before Kleanthes of Assos, Euripides (Troades, 884) in Hecabe's 
prayer equated Zeus to the natural law and reason. The Stoics were convinced that the 
same law of destiny bound both Gods and men, that therefore freedom for man was only 
possible as the moral freedom of the wise man who had overcome his desires through 
rational insight. Here Stoics have again expressed, what Buddha had already taught in 
India centuries before, although both Stoics and Buddhists fell short of pure Indo- 
European religiosity by rejecting and condemning the world. Such reason (sapientia) was 
also regarded by Cicero (de legibus, I, 58) as the connecting link between Gods and men; 
to him it was the "Mother of all Good", the priceless gift of the immortals to mortals. An 
equation of God with reason was expressed by Goethe towards the end of his life in a 
conversation with Eckermann on 23rd February 1831, in which he described "the highest 
Being" as "reason itself. 

Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he 
asserts (/ Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the 
Jews desired revelations (semaia), and Aurelius Augustinus, the Bishop of Hippo 
(Patrologiae cursus completus, Vol. XXXVII, edited by J. P. Migne, 1845, Sp. 1586; 
Vol. XXVIII, 1845, Sp. 1 132) attempts by citing Bible passages, to disparage the wisdom 
(sapientia) of the Hellenes, alien to him as a Christian, as a folly before God and to find 
the highest wisdom only in the obedient humility (humilitas obedentiae) of the faithful. 

The Indo-European belief in a coming together, almost a union, of God and man in 
reason which is common to both, can be called, in a derogatory manner, rationalism; but 
the Indo-Europeans have always tended to logos and ratio — to a logos and ratio which 
through fullness of knowledge is elevated far above the realm of arid good sense or dull 
hair-splitting. Indo-European thought has recognised and acknowledged a primacy of 
practical reason (Kant) which Marcus Tullius Cicero (de legibus, I, 45) introduced by 
Posidonius to Hellenic philosophy — signified with the words: "The natural law 
undoubtedly states that the perfection of reason is virtue" (est enim virtus perfecta ratio, 
quod certe in natura est). Since Plato, Indo-European thinkers have taught that man could 
share or participate in the Good, the True and the Beautiful as partners of the divine. 
Indo-European thinkers (Duns Scotus, Schelling, Schopenhauer) are, each in his own 
way, driven through a voluntarianism beyond every rationalism. 

But human intelligence and comprehension has its limits, while that of the deity is 
boundless, hence the Indo-Europeans, and particularly the Hellenes, have felt deeply their 
dependency on the Gods. The admonition "Know thyself!" which was inscribed in the 
vestibule of the temple of Apollo, reminded men of their limitations when faced with the 
deity. In his 5th Isthmean Ode Pindar warned: "Do not strive to become Zeus!" The same 
experience of life and religion is found again with Goethe: 

Denn mit Gottern 
soil sich nicht messen 
irgendein Mensch. 

For with the Gods 

Shall no man measure himself. 

(Grenzen der Menschheit) 

The enticement to and danger of human self-presumption was apparently familiar to the 
Indo-Europeans, perhaps for the very reason that they felt close to their Gods, and that 
when facing men of other races, they were conscious of their own superiority, and of 
their hereditary aristocratic qualities acquired by strict selection in the post Ice Age 
millenia in central Europe. The fear of human hubris, of self over-reaching, comes from 
the depths of the Hellenic soul, and in the face of all hubris the limited man is 
admonished to keep to his ordained position in the timeless ordering of the world, into 
which the Gods also had to fit themselves. It is the Indo-European' s destiny to stand 
proudly, and with an aristocratic confidence and resolution, but always aware of his own 
limitations, face to face with the boundlessness of the Gods — and no human species has 
felt this sense of destiny more deeply than the Indo-Europeans: the great element of 
tragedy in the poetry of the Indo-European peoples stems from the tension resulting from 
this sense of destiny. 

Nevertheless it is completely impossible to conclude as W. Baetke has done, that tragic 
destiny signified for the Indo-Europeans a ban or spell and brought about an anxiety of 
destiny, which made them ripe for a redemption. Not the God of Destiny, he claims, but 
the redeemer God brought the Teutons to the fulfilment of their religious longings. 15 Thus 

one can pass judgment concerning the Teutonic and Indo-European only externally, never 
from within outwards. The conversion of the Teutons to Christianity can only be 
explained by assuming that amongst them many men of softer heart could not withstand 
the gaze from the eyes of a merciless destiny and — against all reality — took their 
refuge in the dream image of a merciful God. Indo-European men of stronger heart have 
always been, like Frederick the Great, born stoics, who standing upright like the devout 
Vergil, have recognised a merciless fate (inexorabile fatum). 

H. R. Ellis Davidson {Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, 1964, p. 218) has strikingly 
described the religiosity of the Scandinavians, whose Gods like men were subject to 

"Men knew that the gods whom they served could not give them freedom 
from danger and calamity, and they did not demand that they should. We 
find in the myths no sense of bitterness at the harshness and unfairness of 
life, but rather a spirit of heroic resignation: humanity is born to trouble, 
but courage, adventure, and the wonders of life are matters for 
thankfulness, to be enjoyed while life is still granted to us. The great gifts 
of the gods were readiness to face the world as it was, the luck that 
sustains men in tight places, and the opportunity to win that glory which 
alone can survive death." 

Chapter T 


IT is the spiritual strength of the Indo-Europeans — and this is witnessed by the great 
poetry of these peoples, and above all by their tragedies — to feel a deep joy in destiny 
— in the tension between the limitation of man and the boundlessness of the Gods. 
Nietzsche once called this joy amorfati. Particularly the men rich in soul amongst the 
Indo-European peoples feel — in the very midst of the blows of destiny — that the deity 
has allotted them a great destiny in which they must prove themselves. Goethe, in a letter 
to Countess Auguste zu Stolberg of the 17th July 1777 expresses a truly Indo-European 
thought, when he writes: 

Alles geben die Gotter, die unendlichen, 

ihren Lieblingen ganz: 

alle Freuden, die unendlichen, 

alle Schmerzen, die unendlichen, ganz. 

The eternal Gods give everything 

utterly to their favourites, 

all joys, and 

all sorrows for all eternity — 

utterly and completely. 

Never is this Indo-European joy in destiny turned into an acceptance of fate, into 
fatalism. When faced with the certainty of death the Indo-European remains conscious 
that his inherited nature is that of the warrior. This is expressed in the Indian Bhagavad 
Gita (XI, 38) by the God Krishna, when he says to Arjuna: "Joy and pain, gain and loss, 
victory and defeat, think on these things and array thyself for the battle, thus shalt thou 
bring no blame upon thyself. And later the God characterises Indo-European nature still 
more clearly, when he (XVIII, 59) says: "When thou . . . thinkest: 'I will not fight', then 
this thy resolution is vain, thy aristocratic nature will drive thee to it". 

This is the Indo-European view of destiny, the Indo-European joy in destiny, and for the 
Indo-Europeans life and belief would be feebly relaxed, if this spectacle were withdrawn 
in favour of a redeeming God. 

Ideas of a redemption and of redeemers have, with the peoples of Indo-European tongue, 
only been able to spread in the late periods and then usually only amongst Indo- 
Europeanised sub-stratas. When one wishes to apply a concept like redemption to the 
original nature of the Indo-European, one can speak at most of a self-redemption, but 
never of a redemption through a God-man, a demi-God or God. But Indo-European self- 
redemption should be described more correctly as self-liberation, as the liberation of the 
morally self-purifying soul, sinking through itself into its own ground of being, a 

liberation into the timeless and spaceless and a liberation from the necessity of existence 
and the necessity of being. Such a self-liberation, attained by overcoming the desires of 
the self (Pali: kilesa = nibbana or tanhakkhaya, the apatheia of the Stoics) was taught by 
the Indian prince's son, Siddhartha, the Wiseman with "eyes the colour of blossoming 
flax", 16 who later was called Buddha, the Illuminated. 

Such a liberation from time and space is experienced in the Indo-European realm by the 
mystic as the Nirvana during lifetime (Pali: samditthika nibbana), as the apartness or 
solitude of the individual soul sinking into itself, which experiences itself on its deepest 
ground as the universal soul or part of it. Hence the mysticism of the West may not be 
confused with a redemption. 

The Indo-Europeans have always tended to raise the power of destiny above that of the 
Gods (cf. Iliad, XV, 117; XVII, 198 ff.; XXII, 213; Odyssey, HI, 236 ff.; Hesiod, 
Theogony, 220; Aeschylus, Prometheus, 515 ff.; Herodotus, I, 91) especially, 
undoubtedly, the Indians, the Hellenes and the Teutons. The Moira or aisa of the 
Hellenes who already appeared in Homer and Heraclitus, corresponded to the Norns of 
the Teutons, to the wurd (Weird, Wyrd; Scandinavian: Urd). In Shakespeare's Macbeth 
destiny (old English: Wyrd) is represented by the Three Weird Sisters, who correspond to 
the Parcae with the Romans and as goddesses of destiny also appear with the Slavs in 
similar shapes, 17 while there was a goddess of destiny among the Letts (Latvians, an 
Indo-European Baltic people), who was called Leima. Even Plato {Laws, V, 741a) in the 
late period of his people, stressed that the deity was subject to destiny, and an Anglo- 
Saxon proverb, composed by a Christian poet, holds firm to the pre-Christian outlook: 
"Christ is powerful, but more powerful is destiny." Ahura Mazda, the god of the heavens 
of the Iranians, distributes destiny as does Zeus, the heavenly God of the Hellenes (G. 


Widengren: Hochgottglaube im alten Iran, Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1938, VI, pp. 
253 ff.); both, however, can do nothing against destiny. But I repeat, this Indo-European 
view of destiny has nothing to do with fatalism referring merely to that ultimate and hard 
reality, from an awareness of which Indo-European religiosity originates to rise 
Godwards. According to his whole nature the Indo-European cannot even wish to be 
redeemed from the tension of his destiny-bound life. The loosening of this tension would 
have signified for him a weakening of his religiosity. The very fact of being bound to 
destiny has from the beginning proved to be the source of his spiritual existence. "The 
heart's wave would not have foamed upwards so beautifully and become spirit, if the old 
silent rock, destiny, had not faced it." This certainty, expressed by Holderlin in his 
Hyperion, was presaged by the tragedies of Sophocles and of every great poet of Indo- 
European nature. It is the same certainty, which Schopenhauer has expressed in a hard 
remark: "A happy life is impossible, the highest to which man can attain is a heroic 
course of life" (Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume XI, Chapter 34). 

It is clear that a religiosity arising from such an attitude towards life can never become 
universal. Indo-European religions can never be transferred to other human breeds at 
choice. To them belongs mahatma (India), megalethor (Iliad, XVI, 257; Odyssey, XI, 
85), megalophron or megalopsychos (Hellenic — cf. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, H, 
7, 7; IV, 3, 1-34), magnitudo animi (Ulrich Knoche: Magnitudo animi, Philologus, 

Supplementband XXVII, 3, 1935), magnanimus (Roman), the mikilman and the storrada 
(North German), of the ancient Nordic mikilmenska or stormenska, of the men of 
hochgemiite (lofty heart), as it was called in the German Middle Ages — all descriptions 
which could each be a translation of the other. Religiosity is here the maturing of the hero 
in the face of destiny, which he confronts alongside his Gods. This is also the meaning of 
Shakespeare's "Readiness is all" (Hamlet, V, 2, 233) and "ripeness is all" (King Lear, V, 
2, 33). 

It has been said that the Teutonic conception of life was a Pan-tragedy, an attitude which 
conceives all existence and events of the world as borne along by an ultimately tragic 
primal ground. 18 But this Pan-tragedy, which appears almost super-consciously with the 
true Teuton, Hebbel, is not solely Teutonic, and is found amongst all Indo-Europeans, 19 
permeating all Indo-European religiosity. The Indo-European becomes a mature man 
only through his life of tension before destiny. The Teutonic hero, superbly characterised 
by the Icelandic Sagas, loftily understands the fate meeting him as his destiny, remains 
upright in the midst of it, and is thus true to himself. Aeschylus (Prometheus Bound, 936) 
commented similarly, when he said: "Wise men are they who honour Adrasteia", 
Adrasteia being a Hellenic goddess of destiny. 

Because destiny signified so much to the religious Indo-Europeans, we find many names 
for it in their languages: the moira of the Hellenes correspondes to the fatum of the 
Romans, the ananke and heimarmene of the Hellenes to the necessitas and fatalitas of the 
Romans. The Teutons named destiny according to the aspect from which they viewed it, 
as orlog, metod, wurd, skuld and giskapu (cf. also Eduard Neumann, Das Schicksal in der 
Edda, Beitrage zur deutschen Philologie, Vol. Ill, 1955). With the Indians the idea of 
destiny had become the idea of Karma (cf. Julius von Negelein: Die Weltanschauungen 
des indogermanischen Asiens, Veroffentlichungen des Indogermanischen Seminars der 
Universitat Erlangen, Vol. I, 1924, pp. 116 et seq., pp. 165 et seq.) the idea of a soul 
migration which according to one's moral behaviour during lifetime invariably led to a 
better or worse life after reincarnation — a concept which was, however, peculiar to the 
Indians. The idea of a cycle of births, according to the description by the Hellenes of a 
kyklos tes geneseoos, was originally probably peculiar to all Indo-Europeans, and is also 
proved to have existed among the Celts and Teutons (cf. also Erik Therman: Eddan och 
dess Odestragik 1938, pp. 133-134, 172). Perhaps it is also to be explained from the 
attentive observation of inherited bodily and spiritual features in the clans amongst the 
Indians as well as the Iranians, the Hellenes as well as the Romans and Teutons — for 
heredity, or having to be as one is, is destiny. 

Erik Therman (Eddan och dess Odestragik, 1938, p. 90) has found a "mocking defiance 
in the face of destiny, a struggle against this destiny despite recognition of its supreme 
power" to be characteristic of the Edda and many of the Icelandic tales. Such a defiance 
also still speaks from the Mediaeval Nibelungenlied, which astonished Goethe by its non- 
Christian character, which characterised Teutonic imperturbability in the face of 
merciless destiny. It was this same Indo-European imperturbability, which Vergil and 
even the mild Horace praised: 

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas 
atque metus omnis et inexorabile fatum 
subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari. 
(Georgica, II, 490-492) 

Si fr actus illabatur orbis, 
impavidum ferient ruinae. 
(Carmina, III, 3, 7-8) 

Geibel also expressed the same idea in his Briinhilde (II, 2): 

If there's anything more powerful than fate, 
Then it's courage, which bears fate unshaken. 

I have mentioned above that the idea of destiny had already been reflected in Hellenic 
philosophy by Heraclitus, Plato and others. The Stoics, in particular, Posidonius, 
conveyed the Hellenic concept of a law of destiny (heimarmene) to the Romans, which 
was most clearly understood by Epicurus and his disciples Titus Lucretius Cams, 
Vergilius and Horatius. 

The Church has attempted to displace the Indo-European idea of destiny by the idea of 
providence (providentia). With thinking men the attempt failed, for thinking Indo- 
Europeans would not accept a providence, which blindly distributes an excess of grim 
blows of fortune, at the same time regarding this as love and benevolence. In Kant's 
Opus Postumum is found the remark: "If we wished to form a concept of God from 
experience, then all morality would fall away and only despotism be left." Therefore, 
concluded Kant, one would have to assume that such a creator of the world had no regard 
for the happiness of his creatures. 

Whoever is of the same opinion as Baetke (op. cit., p. 33) or H. Riickert, that such views 
signify "no satisfactory solution to the question of destiny", or shares the allusion that 


these men were "never ready religiously to face the question of destiny", — 
understands here as an outside observer, by the question of destiny something completely 
different from that resolute acceptance of destiny in which the Indo-European saw 
himself living. It is not by dissolving the question of destiny in the idea of redemption 
that the Indo-European can perfect his nature — for such redemption would probably 
appear to him as evasion; his nature is perfected solely through proving himself in the 
face of destiny. "This above all: to thine own self be true!" (Hamlet, I, 3, 78). From the 
moral command to remain true to oneself, however, it again follows that Indo-European 
religiosity is of an aristocratic character: one does not advise the degenerate to remain 
true to himself. 

Here I have not tried to provide any solution to the philosophic or religious question of 
destiny, but merely to explain how the Indo-European has lived in his destiny and how it 
has contributed to the maturity of his character. 

The certainty of a destiny has not made the true Indo-European seek redemption, and 
even when his destiny caused him to tremble, he never turned to contrition or fearful 
awareness of "sin". Aeschylus, who was completely permeated by Hellenic religiosity 
and by the power of the divine, stands upright, like every Indo-European, before the 
immortal Gods, and despite every shattering experience has no feeling of sin. 

Thus Indo-European religiosity is not concerned with anxiety, or self-damnation, or 
contrition, but with the man who would honour the divinity by standing up squarely amid 
the turmoil of destiny to pay him homage. 

The German word fromm, meaning religious or devout, is derived from the stem meaning 
capable or fit, and is related to the Gothic fruma, meaning first, and to the Greek promos, 
meaning furthermost. For the Indo-Europeans, religiosity showed itself as the will which 
revealed in the midst of destiny, before the friendly Gods, the fitness of the true-natured 
man who thus became all the more upright and god-filled the more shattering were the 
blows of destiny. In particular the best men and the truest matured are expected by the 
Gods to prove themselves on the anvil of destiny. 

The defiant religiosity of Indo-European youth, which challenges destiny to test the 
strength of the young soul, has been stressed by Goethe in his poem Prometheus. Hebbel 
has also strikingly portrayed youthful Nordic Indo-European religiosity in the poem To 
the Young Men. Indo-European nature extends from such youthful religiosity outwards to 
the quieter, more devoted and fulfilled religiosity of the poem by Goethe, Grenzen der 

Chapter F 


NEVER have Indo-Europeans imagined to become more religious when a "beyond" 
claimed to release them from "this world", which was devalued to a place of sorrow, 
persecution and salvation — to a "beyond" to which was attributed the fullness of joys, 
so that a soul fleeing "this world", must long for it all his earthly life. 

The American religious scientist, William James, has contrasted the religion of healthy 

9 1 

mindedness and the religion of the sick soul, and Western examples of the religiosity of 
a sick soul may be found in Blaise Pascal and Soren Kierkegaard. Indo-European 
religiosity is healthy both in body and soul, and the God-filled soul after elevation to the 
divine achieves equilibrium in all the bodily and spiritual powers of man. 

While non-Indo-European or non-Nordic religiosity, often breaks out all the more 
excitedly the more a religious man loses his equilibrium, the more he is in ekstasis or 
outside himself, the more the Nordic Indo-European strives for equilibrium and 

The Indo-European has confidence only in those spiritual powers which are to be 
experienced when the soul is in equilibrium, that is to say, in proportion and prudence. 

He also mistrusts all insight and knowledge and experience, which the believer acquires 
only in some state of excitement. It is extraordinarily characteristic of Indo-European 
nature, that with the Hellenes eusebeia (religiosity) and sophrosyne (prudence) are often 
used in the same sense. In this the Nordic nature of true Hellenic religiosity is clearly 
seen, and results always in aidoos, that is to say, the shyness, or reserve of the 
worshippers. Religiosity expresses itself with these powerful resolute men in prudent 
conduct and noble reserve, which qualities alone become part of the fullness of the 
divine. Here the root of Indo-European religiosity is revealed to ethnological gaze: the 


religiosity of a farming aristocracy of Nordic race, and of honest generations, possessed 
of a secure self-consciousness and an equally secure reserve, who dispassionately 
contemplated all phenomena, and who preserved balance and dignity even when facing 
the divine. In the form and character of Indo-European religion speaks the nobility of the 
Nordic farming aristocratic nature — all those//<ies, virtus, pietas, and gravitas, which, 
summarised as religio, corresponding to the Hellenic aidoos (reserve), also formed the 
essence of the true Roman, originating from Indo-European ancestors. To this, however, 
there is a limit, which has been repeatedly alluded to above: Indo-European religiosity 
owing to its origin and its nature, can never become common to everyone. 

What Nietzsche, the sick man, called Great Health and what appeared to him as of such 
high value, namely nobility, both permeate the religious life of the Indo-Europeans. 
Whoever wishes to measure religiosity by the visible excitement of the religious man 
must find the Indo-Europeans irreligious. The highest attainments of Indo-European 
religions are only accessible to him when he has learned to master his spiritual powers in 

due proportion, and when he has achieved a proper sense of balance. Therefore Horace 
(Carmina, II, 3, 1-2), in accordance with the wisdom of Hellenic teaching admonishes us: 

Aequam memento rebus in arduis 
servare mentem! 

As has been mentioned above, Plato described the man of moderation as a friend of the 

The Indo-European wishes to stand before the deity as a complete man who has achieved 
the balanced equilibrium of his powers which the deity demands from him. 

A noble balance, the constantia and gravitas, which the Romans expected in particular 
from their senators and high officials, has also been found preserved, by one of the most 
eminent scholars of the pre-Christian Teutonic spirit, the Swiss, Andreas Heusler, in the 
spiritual expression of the numerous Roman sculptures (Kurt Schumacher: 
Germanendarstellungen, edited by Hans Klumbach, 1935) of Teutonic men and women: 
"What strikes one most about these great, nobly formed features, is their mastered calm, 
their integral nobility, indeed their reflective mildness." But such spiritual features can 
also be recognised in the evidence of the ancient Teutonic moral teachings and wisdom of 
life which Andreas Heusler cites in the same connection. This evidence contradicts the 
slanders still sometimes repeated today that the Teutons were crude barbarians, to whom 
only the Mediaeval Church succeeded in inculcating moral standards. 

The mastered calm and integral nobility mentioned by Heusler are, however, 
characteristics of the Indo-European in general, expressions of hereditary dispositions, 
which point back in time beyond the Teutonic into the Indo-European primal period, and 
thus into the early Stone Age of central Europe. This noble balance is the basis of Nordic 
religiosity: when facing the divine will the religious man preserves the equilibrium of his 
soul, the aequanimitas of the Romans, the metriotes and sophrosyne of the Hellenes, the 
upeksha of the Indians. 

Hermann Oldenberg {Buddha, edited by Helmuth von Glasenapp, 1959, p. 185) has 
described the peculiarity of Buddhistic religiosity as: "The equilibrium of forces, inner 
proportion — these are what Buddha recommends us to strive for". Buddha himself once 
compared the spiritual impulses of a religious man with a lute whose strings sound most 
beautifully of all when they are stretched neither too loosely nor too tightly (Mahavagga, 
V, 1, 15-16). This and not perhaps a flaccid mediocrity is also the meaning of the aurea 
mediocritas of Horatius, which can be explained from the Nichomachean Ethics of 

This ideal of integral nobility, common to all the Indo-Europeans, the sense of a noble 
balance has also expressed itself in works of the plastic arts and poetry. I have cited the 
festival of the Panathenaea, the ara pads and the carmen saeculare of Horace as 
examples. In Athens every four years in celebration of the city goddess Athena, the all- 
Athenian (Pan-athenian) festival procession made its way to the Acropolis, as portrayed 

in the sculpture of the Parthenon frieze, one of the most beautiful creations of the noble 
balance of Hellenic and Indo-European religiosity. Ernst Langlotz, who wrote about this 
frieze in his book Schonheit und Hoheit (1948, p. 14), describes the long series of these 
sculptures in such a way that through their noble self-control the tragic Indo-European 
destiny of the Hellenic is also recognised: these figures are "filled by the dangerous 
spiritual tensions of power in their life, which, akin to tragedy, elevates men, while it 
crushes them". Nobility of soul and calm, a calm which is above all expressed in the 
Parthenon, has also been described by Josef Strzygowski (Spuren indogermanischen 
Glaubens in der Bildenden Kunst, 1936, pp. 279 et seq.) as characteristic of Hellenic as 
well as of Indo-European nature in general. 

The arapacis, an altar dedicated in Rome in the year 9 B.C. probably based on Hellenic 
models and the Parthenon frieze, represents a sacrifice by noble Romans, in which 
Augustus himself and his family participates, accompanied by high officials and lictors. 
The architecture and its sculptures express the Hellenic-Roman religiosity of religio, of 
aidoos (reserve), even in this late period, in pure and mature shape. 

The Roman poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus has also expressed pure and mature religiosity 
of an Indo-European type in the midst of a spiritually confused and morally desolate late 
period, in a festive religious poem, the carmen saeculare (Carmina, III, 25). The Indo- 
European idea of world order, in which the man of belief strives to adapt himself, is here 
expressed again; Honour, manliness, loyalty, modesty and peace (Verse 57-58). The 
furtherance of all growth is implored from the Gods, the prospering of cattle and of the 
fruits of the fields; the Gods should present the Roman people "with success and children 
and everything beautiful" (Verse 45). The same attitude is evident in the greeting of the 
Scandinavian Teutons, who wished each other a fruitful year and peace (ar okfridr) or 
also a fruitful year and prosperous herds of cattle (ar okfesaela). 

The upright man regards nothing in his nature as lower in value than deity; therefore for 
the Indo-Europeans there is no conflict between body and soul. This absence of conflict 
indeed already emanates from the will to preserve the equilibrium of the human powers, 
even when he conceives of the body and soul as different in essence. Yet on the whole 
the Indo-European has lived more in harmony of body and soul; the Teutons, for 
example, have always tended to regard the body as an expression of the soul. A 
perceptive form of theoretical dualism, in which the subject faces the object — in which 
the perceiver faces an "object of perception" (H. Riickert) — will be no more to the true 
Indo-European spirit, than a method, a convenient thought process for knowledge, and he 
will neither emphasise the concept of contrast between body and soul nor will he 
misjudge (as did Ludwig Klages) the spirit aroused in the tension between the subject and 
object as an adversary of the soul. To the Indo-European, the distinction between body 
and soul is not stimulating, not even to religiosity. 

Thus this question has never vexed the Indo-Europeans, and they have never de-valued 
the body so as to value the soul more highly. Quite remote from them lies the idea that 
the body, addicted to this world, is a dirty prison for a soul striving out of it towards 
another world. Whenever the outer and inner in men are observed separately, then they 

are joined in the religious man in an effect of mutual equilibrium. The ideal of a healthy 
mind in a healthy body has become an English proverb in recent years, and in this we see 
the reassertion of Nordic religiosity in modern times. It is, after all, a reflection of the 
prayer which Plato, at the end of his Phaedrus causes Socrates to utter to the Gods: 

"Grant that I may become beautiful within, and that my outward possessions do not 

conflict with the inner." 

The honouring of the body as a visible expression of membership of a selected genus or 
race is characteristic of the Indo-Europeans. For this reason, every idea of killing the 
senses, of asceticism, lies very remote from this race, and would appear to them as an 
attempt to paralyse rather than balance human nature. It is something especially peculiar 
to the Hither- Asiatic race, 25 but it is also found in another form in the East Baltic race. 2 
Indo-European religiosity is that of the soul which finds health and goodness in the world 
and in the body. For the religious men of the Hither- Asiatic race and for the western 
Europeans governed by the Hither-Asiatic racial spirit the Indo-Europeans must appear as 
children of this world, because the non-Indo-European spirit can seldom understand even 
the essence of Indo-European religiosity and hence will assume that it lacks religiosity 

Hermann Lommel (Iranische Religion, in Carl Clemen: Die Religionen der Erde, 1927, 
p. 146) uses the term "religiosity of this world" to characterise the Iranian (Persian) 
religion: "Life in this world", he says, "offered the Iranians unbounded possibilities for 
the worship of God". Goethe also, in his poem Vermdchtnis altpersischen Glaubens has 
strikingly described the religiosity of the Iranians: 

Schwerer Dienste tdgliche Bewahrung, 
Sonst bedarfes keiner Offenbarung. 

Daily preservation of hard services, 
No other kind of revelation is needed. 

The Indo-Europeans are truly children of this world in the sense that this world can allow 
the unfolding of the whole richness of their worshipping, confiding and entrusting 
dedication to the divine, a worshipful penetration of all aspects of this life and 
environment through an all embracing elevated disposition of the mind. The divine is 
found to be universally present, as Schiller {The Gods of Greece) has described it: 

Alles wies den eingeweihten Blicken, 
alles eines Gottes Spur. 

To the enlightened, the whole Universe 
breathes the spirit of God. 

Thus the religious forms of the Indo-Europeans have unfolded with great facility into a 
multiplicity of Gods, always accompanied, however, by a premonition or clear 
recognition that ultimately the many Gods are only names for the different aspects of the 
divine. In the worship of mountain heights, rivers, and trees, in the worship of the sun, 
the beginning of spring, and the dawn (Indian: Ushas, Iranian: Usha, Greek: Eos from 
Ausos, Latin: Aurora from Ausosa, Teutonic: Ostara), in the worship of ploughed land, 
and the tribal memory of outstanding individual leaders of prehistory subsequently 
elevated to the status of demi-Gods ... in all this the Indo-European religiosity of "this 
world" is revealed as an expression of the experience of being sheltered and secure in the 
world which these peoples felt. W. Hauer 27 has described the foundation of the Indo- 
European religiosity as "being sheltered by the world" (Weltgeborgenheit). One could 
also quote Eduard Spranger in support of this when he spoke of the religiosity of this 
world in which this feeling of being secure in the world has been expressed. 

Since being secure in the world forms the basis of this religiosity, as soon as it is 
developed with philosophic reflection it easily assumes the concept of the universal deity 
and becomes pantheistic, but this tendency remains reflective, and Indo-European 
religiosity never becomes intoxicated by the more impulsive forms of mysticism. 

The strictly theistic religions of the Semites proclaimed personal Gods. T. H. Robinson 
(Old Testament in the Modern World, in H. H. Rowley: The Old Testament and Modern 
Study, 1951, p. 348) states categorically that "in the Jewish or Old Testament belief, there 
is no room left open for any kind of Pantheism." Arthur Drews, in Die Religion als 
Selbstbewusstsein Gottes (1906, pp. 1 14-115), called Theism the basic category of 
Semitic religiosity, and Pantheism the basic category of Indo-European religiosity. 
Hermann Giintert, in Der arische Weltkonig und Heiland (1923, pp. 413 et seq.) found 
that mysticism corresponds to the Indo-European kind of mind, and considers that the 
existence of such a common tendency depends on their original racial identity. 

The original Indo-European characteristically did not conceive of temples as dwelling 
places for Gods, nor did the oldest Indians. The early Romans and the Italici probably 
neither built temples nor carved images of the Gods. Tacitus (Germania, IX) wrote that 
the Teutons' idea of the greatness of the deity did not permit them to enclose their Gods 
within walls. For the same reason the Persian King Khshayarsha (Xerxes) burnt the 
temples in Greece (Cicero: de legibus, II, 26: quod parietibus includerunt deos) which 
the Hellenes, deviating from the original Indo-European outlook, had begun to construct 
in the seventh century B.C. — wooden buildings at first, unmistakeably derived from 
central European early Stone Age and Bronze Age rectangular houses. Similarly the fact 
that the Indo-Europeans originally possessed no images of their Gods may correspond to 
a religiosity originating in the feeling of being secure in the world, and of being men of 
broad vision, an attitude which from the beginning has tended towards the concept of 
universal divinity. 

The broad vision of the Indo-Europeans — a vision of man summoned to spiritual 
freedom, to theoria, or beholding (gazing) as perfected by the classical art of the Hellenes 
— such a vision comprehends the whole world, and all divine government and all 

responsible human life in it, as part of a divine order. The Indians called it rita, over 
which Mitra and Varuna (Uranos in Greek mythology) stand guard — "the guardians of 
rita"; the Persians called it ascha or urto (salvation, right, order); the Hellenes, kosmos; 
the Italici, ratio; the Teutons, orlog, or Midgard. Hermann Lommel, in Zarathustra und 
seine Lehre (Universitas, Year XII, 1957), speaks of a "lawful order of world events", 
which the Iranians are said to have represented. Such an idea, the idea of a world order in 
which both Gods and men are arranged, permeates the teaching of the Stoics, and when 
Cicero (de legibus, I, 45; definibus, IV, 34) praises virtue (virtus) as the perfection of 
reason, which rules the entire world (natura), then he once more expressed the idea of 
universal ordered life. This idea was recognised and expounded by the Jena scholar of 
jurisprudence Burkhard Wilhelm Leist (1819-1906), in his works Ancient Aryan Jus 
gentium (1889) and Ancient Aryan Jus civile (1892-1896). Julius von Negelein in Die 
Weltanschauungen des Indogermanischen Asiens (Veroffentlichungen des 
Indogermanischen Seminars der Universitat Erlangen, Vol. I, 1924, pp. 100 et seq., 104 
et seq., 1 18 et seq.) has studied the idea of order as expressed in the course of the year 
with Indians and Iranians, an idea which corresponded to the teachings of the duty of the 
man of insight and of elevated moral outlook to fit himself into the order of the world. 
Later, Wolfgang Schultz (Zeitrechnung und Weltordnung, 1929), stressed that it is found 
solely of all the peoples on earth, amongst the Indo-Europeans. The fragment of a 
Hellenic prayer has been preserved which implores the Gods for order (eunomia) on 
behalf of mortals (Anthologia Graeca, Vol. II, edited by Diehl, p. 159). 

In India the caste order also corresponded to universal order of life (Gustav Mensching: 
Kastenordnung und Fuhrertum in Indien, Kriegsvortrage der Universitat Bonn am Rh., 
Heft 93, 1942, pp. 8 et seq.). By means of the caste order, the three highest castes, 
descendants of the tribes which immigrated from south-eastern middle Europe in the 
second pre-Christian millenia (R. von Heine-Geldern: Die Wanderungen der Arier nach 
Indien in archdologischer Betrachtung, Forschungen und Fortschritte, Year 13, No. 26- 
27, p. 308; Richard Hauschild: Die Friihesten Arier im alten Orient), who, like the 
Iranians, called themselves Aryans, attempted to keep their race pure. The caste law was 
regarded as corresponding to the law of world order (dharma), or the ius divinum as the 
Romans described it. Participation in the superior spiritual world of the Vedas, 
Brahmanas and Upanishads originally determined the degree of caste. The higher the 
caste, the stricter was the sense of duty to lead a life corresponding to the world order. 
Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), who can be described as predominantly Nordic from the 
shape of his head and facial features, informs us in his autobiography, that he originated 
on both his father's and mother's side from the Brahman families of Kashmir — from the 
mountainous north-west of India, into which the Aryans had migrated in substantial 
numbers, where blond children are still sometimes found — and that one of his aunts had 
been taken for an English woman because of her fair skin, her light hair and her blue 
eyes. All the great ideas of Indian religion and philosophy were either brought into India 
with the Aryan immigrants or else have originated in the area of Aryan settlement, that is 
in the valley of the Indus, the land of the five streams (the Punjab) or the region of the 
upper Ganges. 

If in Germany there were a university chair to study the spiritual life of the Indo- 
Europeans, in the same way as in France there is a chair to study "la civilisation Indo- 
Europeenne", at present occupied by the outstanding, though almost unknown, Georges 
Dumezil, then the inter-relationships of the Indo-European spirit and interpretation of the 
world (B. W. Leist bravely attempted this study towards the end of the nineteenth 
century), would have been investigated more zealously. The idea which took shape in the 
Christian Middle Ages, of co-ordinating everything in this world to another world, 
extending from the division of the classes of the state to include the segregation of all 
men into an ordo salutis, an order of salvation, is probably a blend of thought derived 
from the impact of the Indo-European concept of the meaningful world order upon the 
invocation of Pauline- Augustinian Christianity to retreat from "this world". It is also 
interesting to find that Ernst Theodor Sehrt (Shakespeare und die Ordnung, 
Veroffentlichungen der Schleswig-Holsteinischen Universitatsgesellschaft, No. 12, 1955, 
pp. 7 et seq.), has shown that the Indo-European idea of order, linked with the 
Pythagorian and Platonic ideas of the harmony of the spheres and with the Stoic praise of 
reason, which is understood as in accord with world order, is also found in Shakespeare. 

"The Gods fixed the measure and end of everything on mother earth," says the Odyssey 
(XVIII, 592-593), and Pherecydes who was probably taught by Anaximandros speaks in 
the sixth century B.C. of "ordering Zeus", and here the idea of the divine world order 
resounds, just as it resounds in the Edda in The Vision of the Seeress: 

Then go the Regi rulers all 
To their judgment stools, 
These great holy Goths 
And counselt together that 
To the Night and New Moon 
They'd give these names. 

Morning also they named 
And Mid-Day too 
Dinner and Afternoon 
The time for to tell. 

(L. A. Waddell: The British Edda, 1930, p. 23.) 

Family, nation and state, worship and law, the seasons of the year and the festivals (cf. 
also Johannes Hertl: Die Awestischen Jahreszeitenfeste, Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen 
der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Vol. 85, 2, 1933; Das 
indogermanische Neujahrsopfer, Vol. 90, 1, 1938) the customs and spiritual life, 
farmland, house and farm; all were related in a world order, and in this order man lived as 
a member of his race, which was perpetuated permanently in ordered procreation. This 
appears with the Hellenes as the Hestia idea, and was symbolised with all Indo- 
Europeans in the worship of the fire of the hearth (in Indian: Agni, in Latin: ignis, in 
Iranian: Atar, in Celtic: Brigit). Thus within the all-embracing world order, disciplined 
and selective procreation plays a divine role for the preservation of racial inheritance, the 

God-given racial heritage. Thus care of race is both a consequence and a requirement of 
the world order — a direct assertion of the Indo-European religious heart. 

In the Indian Law Book ofManu, X, 61, may be found the idea of order in procreation: 
"The inhabitants of the kingdom, in which disorderly procreation occurs, rapidly 
deteriorate". Hence the Indo-European holds sexual life sacred, enshrining it in the family 
and the woman, honouring the mistress of the house (despoina, matrona) as the guardian 
of their Racial Heritage. The worship of the divi parentes sprang naturally from the pride 
and reverence in which they held their ancestors. It follows that Indo-European religiosity 
calls for disciplined choice (Zuchtwahl), in selecting a husband or wife (a eugeneia), and 
that Indo-European families strive to preserve good breeding. 

In the recorded cosmic or Midgard concepts of the Indo-Europeans, man has his proper 
place in the great scheme of ordered life, but he is not enchained to it as are the oriental 
religions, with their star worship and priestly prophesies of the future — the study of 
entrails and the flight of birds, practised by the Babylonians, Etruscans and others. He 
appears in a trusting relationship with his God, whose nature itself is connected with the 
world order, and he joins with this God on a national scale in the struggle against all 
powers hostile to man and God, against chaos, against Utgard. The Indo-European 
recognises Midgard, the earth-space, as the field in which he may fulfil his destiny, 
cherishing life as a cultivator or farmer, where plants, animals and men are each called to 
grow and ripen into powerful forces asserting themselves within the timeless order. Guilt 
in man — not sin — arises wherever an individual defies or threatens this order and 
attempts through short-sighted obstinacy to oppose the divine universal order in life. For 
such a crime an individual incurs guilt. By such a crime, his people are threatened with 
the danger of decline and degeneration, and the world order with confusion and 

Wenn des Leichtsinns Rotte 
die Natur entstellt, 
huldige du dem Gotte 
durch die ganze Welt! 

If the frivolous mob, 
distort nature, 
Honour thou the God 
Through all the world! 
(Von Platen: Parsenlied) 

The Indo-Europeans, and particularly the Iranians, have to struggle continuously between 
on the one hand, the divine will, which strives to shape and introduce order into nations 
for the enhancement of every living thing, and between, on the other hand, a will hostile 
to God, which brings disintegration and distortion of form and the destruction of all seed 
on the other. The God Ahura Mazda (Ormuzd) perpetually struggles against the anti-God 
Angro Mainju (Ahriman). Midgard, the universal order of life, preserves and renews 
itself only through the brave and the constant struggle of men and Gods against the 

powers hostile to the Divine order, against Utgard. (cf. also Julius von Negelein, op. cit., 
pp. 116 et seq.). Mid 
and the divine laws. 


pp. 1 16 et seq.). Midgard is the product of the harmonious ordering of human honour 

The ideas of rita and ascha, the kosmos and ratio, and the Midgard idea of the Indo- 
Europeans reveal particularly clearly that Indo-European religiosity was rooted in a will 
to enhance life. It was a religious outlook by virtue of which man, with his great soul, 
sought to stand proudly beside God as me galop sychos, inspired by the truly Indo- 
European magnitudo animi, the stormenska, the mental elevation and magnanimity of the 
Icelanders, the hochgemiite of the Mediaeval German knights; "rum Hart, klar Kimming" 
as the Frisian proverb says, is characteristic of the religiosity of the Nordic Indo- 
European farming aristocracy. 

Chapter F 

hapter r IVE 

IF we survey the whole field of Indo-European religiosity it is clear that much of what 
has been held in the Christian West as characteristic of the especially religious mind, will 
be found lacking in the Indo-European — lacking for those who seek to measure the 
Indo-European in terms of their own different religious stamp. Death can never be 
regarded by the Indo-European as a gloomy admonition to belief and religiosity. The fear 
of death, the threatened end of the world and the judgment of the dead have often been 
described as reasons for adhering to the narrow path of faith and morality. This is not true 
of the Indo-Europeans, for whom religiosity is a means to a fuller and wider life. As the 
Edda says: 

Bright and cheerful 
should each man be 
until death strikes him! 
(Edda, Vol. II, 1920, p. 144.) 

Death is a significant phenomenon of human life, but the strength of Indo-European 
religiosity is not based upon the contemplation or fear of death. Death belongs to the 
universal order of life. The Indo-European faces it in the same way as the best in our 
people do today. Because for the honest man perfect human life is already possible on 
this earth, through balanced self-assertion; because in the order of the world the death of 
the individual is a natural phenomenon in the life or progression of the race, and because 
the beyond has no essential meaning in the life of the Indo-European, death has no 
influence on the Indo-European' s beliefs or moral concepts, except as a reminder that the 
time allowed to the individual to fulfil his purpose and duties as a member of the race is 

It is striking how pallid and how unstimulating are the original Indo-European ideas of 
life after death, such as the kingdom of death, of Hades, or Hel as seen by the Teutons. 
The Teutonic concept of Valhalla is scarcely of value here, being a late and exceptional 
development, derived less from religious disposition than from the poetic descriptive gift, 
of the Norwegian and Icelandic poets of the Viking era. It is also striking to find that no 
memories of Valhalla have been preserved in German sagas and fairy tales. 
Fundamentally, death for the Indo-Europeans meant the passage to a life, which in its 
individual features resembled life in the world of the living, only it was quieter, more 
balanced. The dead person remained part of the clan soul, in which he had shared when 
alive. He was at no time an unbridled individual, but always part of the existence over 
generations of a clan, inhabiting hereditary farms in the national homeland. As part of the 
clan soul individual death had no meaning for him. What concerned him in the kingdom 
of death was the welfare and prosperity of his clan, with its horses and cattle, fields and 
meadows. Achilles, when dead, asks Odysseus, who had penetrated into the underworld: 

"Give me news of my splendid sons!" {Odyssey, XL, 492), and goes away "with great 
strides, filled with joy" when he has learned of "his sons' virtue" (XI, 539-540). As Paul 
Thieme (Studien zur indogermanischen Wortkunde und Religionsgeschichte, 1952, pp. 46 
et seq.), has shown, the Indo-European ideas of a kingdom of the dead were originally 
less gloomy than the later Hellenic ideas of Hades or the Teutonic concept of Hel. In the 
Rig Veda of the Indians, as in the Avesta of the Iranians and as with Homer, memories are 
preserved of the kingdom of the dead as a pleasant meadow, a cattle meadow (Rig Veda) 
or a foal's meadow (Homer) separated from the land of the living only by a river. On 
such green meadows the dead are reunited with their ancestors. According to Hans 
Hartmann (Der Totenkult in Irland, 1952, pp. 207-208) the honouring of dead ancestors 
as well as the worship of fire and the sun in Celtic Ireland corresponds to North- 
Germanic, Italic, Tocharic and Indo-Iranian customs, and seems therefore to form part of 
common Indo-European customs. Corresponding word equivalents between the Celtic 
and Italic on the one side and the Indo-Iranian on the other are also found (Paul 
Kretschmer: Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, 1896, pp. 125 et 
seq.; J. Vendryes: Les Correspondances de vocabulaire entre I'Indo-Arien et I'ltalo- 
Celtique, Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique, Vol. XX, 1918, pp. 268 ff., 285). Indo- 
European religiosity in fact has never emphasised the death of the individual, for the 
world order is regarded as timeless. Despite the decline of whole eras shaken through 
guilt, there is no actual world's end, nor any dawn of a "Kingdom of God" transforming 
all things, in preparation for which many "Westerners" today retreat from the world to 
reflect upon their "last hour". 

As long as the order of life is preserved by the efforts of man and God against the powers 
hostile to the divine, the idea of redemption is incomprehensible to the Indo-Europeans. 
Redemption from what — and to what other existence? Midgard was not evil, and if one 
strove by brave, noble or moral action to keep the forces of Utgard at bay, there was no 
better life than that of friendship with the Gods by participating through balanced self- 
assertion in the universal order of life. 

The true and original Indo-Europeans lack the figures of redeemers, the "heralds of 
salvation" and "saviours", who are so characteristic of the history of Egypt, Palestine, 
Syria, and the entire region from Hither- Asia to India. The earliest stirring of the idea of 
redemption, and the earliest figure of a redeemer, the saoshyant, amongst the peoples of 
Indo-European tongue is found with the Persians undoubtedly due to an admixture of 
Hither-Asiatic race and culture whom L. F. Clauss has aptly described as "redemption 
men". Also, aspects of the Teutonic God Balder belong to the saviour figures of Hither- 
Asia, most of all in the circle of the Babylonian Astarte legends and the ideas widely 

Q 1 

spread in the Orient of the dying and ever rising God. Balder has rightly often been 
compared with Christ. He is a saviour figure, given new meaning by the Teutonic spirit, 
and is no more an original Teutonic God, than are the Vanir, from south-east Europe 
whose Hither- Asiatic features were reinterpreted in Teutonic forms. For the unfolding of 
religious feelings heralds of salvation were not necessary to the Indo-Europeans. 

The concept of a redeemer who serves as a mediator between the divinity and man must 
also be alien to Indo-European religiosity; according to his own nature, the Indo- 

European seeks the natural direct way to God. For this reason a priesthood as a more 
sacred class, elevated above the rest of the people, could not develop amongst the original 
Indo-Europeans. 32 The idea of priests as mediators between the deity and men would 
have been a contradiction of Indo-European religiosity and instead of a rulership of 
priests there developed amongst the original Indo-Europeans the far-sighted, resolute 
state organisations of the Nordic-Indo-European kind. Comprising a community of 
farmer warriors, the idea of the state proceeded from the freedom and equality of the 
land-owning family fathers, who owned their hereditary farm as freemen (Greek: klaroi 
or kleroi, Latin: heredia). It sprang therefore from a rural democracy, which in later times 
was usually succeeded by a city trading democracy. Democracy based on the rural spirit 
of yeomen has been celebrated by Gottfried Keller in Fdhnlein der sieben Aufrechten 
(1861), while democracy based on the city trader spirit was pilloried by him in Martin 
Salander (1896). The democracy of yeomen, by its very nature, did not permit the 
existence of a priestly hierarchy. Such other functions as a priestly hierarchy might desire 
to usurp were already fulfilled by the father of the family and the heads of the clans, 
tribes and nations in their natural and national function as a part of the world order. 

It is true that the Indo-European might accept the priest as an interpreter and perfecter of 
the traditional folk spirit, as the unfolder and new creator of hereditary religiosity; that is 
in accordance with Indo-European nature. But the idea of the priest as a prophet, anxious 
to dominate and spiritually enchain the religious community, is something which Indo- 
European nature cannot tolerate, for Nordic-Indo-European religiosity is based on noble, 
measured conduct and the secure maintenance of a bodily and spiritual distance between 
men. Both heightening oneself, and emotional intoxication, ekstasis, or holy orgia, and 
standing outside oneself and the infiltration of self into the spiritual domains of other 
men, are distinctive features of the Hither- Asiatic race soul. Measure (balance), yoga 
(Latin: iugum, German: Joch, English: yoke), metron, temperantia, are as above, 
distinctive features of the Nordic race soul and of the original Indo-European religiosity: 
eusebeia synonymous with sophrosyne; Sanskrit: upeksha, Pali: upekha; likewise in the 
religiosity of the Stoics (apatheia) and of the Epicureans (ataraxia). 

This is not to suggest that the Indo-Europeans were not aware that the condition of 
intoxication is indicative of superabundant spiritual activity — as distinct from alcoholic 
intoxication, which like the Nectar of the Hellenes or the Met (Mead) of the Teutons they 
prepared from honey, and known by the Indo-Aryans as Soma and the Iranians as 
Haoma. From Herodotus (I, 33) and from Tacitus (Germania, XXII), it can be seen that 
the Indo-Europeans demanded control of any state of intoxication. The sense of 
intoxication of the spiritual creator when finding and shaping new knowledge is 
admittedly to be traced amongst all peoples of Indo-European tongue, the mania musoon, 
the craze of the Muses without which, according to Plato, there is no spiritual creation. 
Without this "madness", the creations, re-creations and new creations of Indo-European 
religiosity would not have been possible. But when one seeks to ascertain to what extent 
the Indo-Europeans have expressed such spiritual intoxication in visible behaviour and in 
words, again and again one becomes aware of their self-control (yoga, enkrateia, 
disciplina, self-control). Such intoxications allow the spirit to take flight, but the flight 
itself obeys the laws of race soul striving for balance. Holderlin knew the "uncontrolled 

powers of Genius" but as a basic principle of creation he taught the Indo-European to 
seek the wisdom of a maturer age: "Hate intoxication like the frost!" he said, to which he 
added the admonition, "Be devout only as the Greeks were devout!" In this he echoed the 
words of Horace (ars poetica, 268-269), expressing the awe aroused in men by the works 
of Hellenic poetry: 

vos exemplaria Graeca 

nocturna versate manu, versate diurnal 

If we ask ourselves what the Hellenic spirit and what Hellenic art signified to Horace, to 
Winckelmann, Goethe, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Holderlin, and Shelley, then it must have 
been this: that among all Indo-European peoples, it was granted to the Hellenes to 
represent with the greatest clarity and beauty the balanced dignity of man in fearless 
freedom of the spirit. Walter F. Otto (Das Wort der Antike, 1962, p. 345) has described 
the impression — attractive to the Indo-European nature — which strikes visitors to a 
museum of ancient art when they pass from the Egyptian or Hindoo or east- Asiatic 
displays into the room of Hellenic art: "The first feeling one receives," he writes, "is that 
of a wonderful freedom." With such a feeling of freedom as this, the Hellenic man of 
balance and dignity confronted the deity. 

What such Indo-European freedom signifies in the state will be studied later. Here we can 
only allude to what Cornelius Tacitus wrote: Freedom (libertas) in the Indo-European 
sense is only possible where a people strives to achieve the value of virtus, the dignity of 
the powerful, upright individual man. If in a people the freedom of the city masses, who 
desire welfare (Bread and Circuses) from the State, triumphs then in such a state the 
freedom of the individual man and that of the minority will be steadily suppressed by the 
majority, until finally only dominatio is still possible, that is to say, the equal subjection 
of all under one tyrant. 

Confronted with the hereditary disposition of the Indo-Europeans, religions which have 
been described as revelations or stipendiary religions, i.e. religions with a "founder" were 
unable to develop among them. The sudden transformation of one's own nature into 
something completely different, the transformation which is regarded as a re-birth or 
inner experience belongs far more to the oriental race soul of the desert, and readily 
occurs in the Orient, where the predominant spirit is of the Hither- Asiatic and Oriental 



Revelation — L. F. Clauss calls the Oriental race "revelation men" — the forming of 
religions through a prophet, the excitability and impulsiveness of the faithful for the 
revealed faith, are all phenomena which do not prosper in the realm of Indo-European 
religiosity. The elevation of faith in itself, and of credulity for the sake of credulity, the 
meritoriousness of faith as a particularly powerful magical means for justification before 
God — Luther's sola fide — religious manifestations such as these appear to the Nordic- 
Indo-Europeans as a distortion of human nature, of that human nature which is willed by 
the deity itself. Faith in itself cannot be an Indo-European value, but it is certainly a value 
for men of Oriental (desert land) races. Goethe in his introductory poem to the 

Westostlichen Divan — typified the overexcess and excitedness of Oriental faith and the 
lack of thought corresponding to such excess, being all "Broad belief and narrow 
thought". Excitedness for a belief, excitedness over an urge to convert, the mission to 
"unbelievers" the assertion that one's own belief alone could make one blessed, an 
excitedness, further, which expresses itself in hatred towards other Gods and persecution 
of their believers: such excited rage or fanaticism has repeatedly emanated from tribes of 
predominantly Oriental race and from the religious life of such tribes. Eduard Meyer, in 
his Geschichte des Alter urns (1907, Part I, Book I, p. 385), has even spoken of the brutal 
cruelty, which has distinguished the religious spirit of peoples of Semitic language. 

All this is as remote and unnatural to the Indo-European as is the immersion of the self 
into alien domains of the soul, frequently evident in men of Hither- Asiatic race. The more 
convinced the Indo-European lived in his belief, all the more repellent to his nature must 
have been the idea of its being represented to a stranger as the only valid one before God. 
The Indo-European religiosity does not preach to non-believers, but is willing to explain 
to an enquirer the nature of his personal beliefs. Hence the patience of all Indo-Europeans 
in religious matters. In my book Die Nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens 
(1934, p. 1 12), I have written: "Zeal to convert and intolerance have always remained 
alien to every aspect of Indo-European religiosity. In this is revealed the Nordic sense of 
distance between one man and another, modesty which proscribes intrusion upon the 
spiritual domains of other men. One cannot imagine a true Hellene preaching his 
religious ideas to a non-Hellene; no Teuton, Roman, Persian or Aryan Brahman Indian, 
who would have wished to 'convert' other men to his belief. To the Nordic race soul, 
interfering in the spiritual life of other men is as ignoble as violating individual 
boundaries." Mutual tolerance of religious forms is a distinctive feature of the Indo- 
European. The memorial stones in the Roman-Teutonic frontier region reveal through 
their inscriptions that the Roman frontier troops and settlers not only honoured their own 
Gods, but also respected the local deity of the Teutons, the genius huius loci. 

In the Persian kingdom of the Achaemenides, Ahura Mazda was worshipped as the 
Imperial God (G. Widengren: Hochgottglaube im Alten Iran, Uppsala Universitets 


Arsskrift, 1938, pp. 259 et seq.) and from being an Iranian tribal God became God over 
all peoples of the earth. 

Jahve (Jehovah), who was originally a Hebrew tribal God, subsequently turned for many 
— not all — Jews into a God of all the peoples. But the Persians, as Indo-Europeans, 
never forced Ahura Mazda on the alien tribes and peoples of their kingdom. The kings 
Cyrus the Great and Darius passed commandments concerning the mutual tolerance of 
the religions of their Empire (G. Widengren: Iranische Geisteswelt, Vienna, 1961, pp. 
245 et seq.). The Indian King Asoka, who was converted to Buddhism, the sole religion 
which spread peacefully and without bloodshed, ruled in approximately the middle of the 
third century B.C. in India over a great kingdom, and introduced laws prescribing mutual 
tolerance between the religions of his kingdoms. They were engraved on stone tablets, 
and many were rediscovered at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The historian can 
only cite such examples from the Indo-European realm. Vergil's law of sparing the 
vanquished (parcere subjectis) was practised by the Romans not only on subject peoples, 

but also on their Gods and religions although an interpretatio Romana once attempted to 
include alien Gods as being off-shoots of their own deities. 

Ammianus Marcellinus, a troop leader in the army of the Emperor Julian, whom the 
Christians called the Apostate (apostata) wished to continue the histories of Tacitus in his 
own writings. In recording the events in his time, when Christianity had already become 
the state religion, Ammianus — a pagan — reported the intrigues of the Christians 
against Julian without abuse, since this would not have corresponded to his Hellenic- 
Roman attitude of tolerance. In the controversies of Pagan and Christian writers and 
poets, passionate worshippers of the old Roman belief such as Quintus Aurelius 
Symmachus, Ambrosius Theodosius Macrodius and Claudius Rutilius Namantianus, have 
given their opinion of Christianity and Christians in a dignified manner. Abuse and 
contempt for opponents is found in these times only amongst the Christian writers. Only 
after their conversion to Christianity, whose idea of God corresponded to the intolerant, 
religious war-waging Gods of the Semitic tribe, have Indo-European peoples forced their 
beliefs on alien tribes; the king of the Franks, Charlemagne, forced Christianity upon the 
Saxons who were subjected after a bloody struggle. King Olav Tryggveson of Norway 
(995-1000), after being baptised in England, was persuaded to force conversion on his 
own people by cunning, treachery and cruel persecutions, as well as by bribing them to 
submit to baptism. Andreas Heusler (Germanentum, 1934, pp. 47, 48, 119, 122) has 
asserted that among the Northern Teutons there was quite enough violence, but never 
cruelty; only after the introduction of Christianity did converted zealots behave cruelly 
towards their countrymen. With the conversion of the North, an alien wave of cruelty 
entered the land. Heusler has said that the methods of torture used by the converted King 
Olav against those who were reluctant to change their faith, could have been learned by 
the Northerners "only in the Orient". 

Only in Iceland, whence many Pagan Norwegian yeomen fled from religious persecution 
to found a state of free and equal landowning family fathers, a characteristic Teutonic 
democracy, was the inherited tolerance restored and preserved. In this country alone was 
the Pagan faith permitted to survive without persecution after the triumph of Christianity 
— as recorded in the poems of the Edda and the long series of tales of the Icelanders, the 
Sogur (singular: Saga; cf. Andreas Heusler: Germanentum, 1934, p. 94; Hans Kuhn: Das 
Nordgermanische Heidentum in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Zeitschrift fur 
deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, Vol. LXXIX, 1942, p. 166). Even the heroic 
songs of Teutonic antiquity which had been collected and recorded by the Christian 
Charlemagne, king of the Franks, were burned as being pagan by his son, Ludwig the 
Pious. Indo-European belief without tolerance is inconceivable, and any Indo-European 
religious form, which demanded "true believers", is similarly inconceivable, just as much 
as an Indo-European form of belief in conflict with free research, and independent 
thought is inconceivable. Where excitedness of belief might damage the inborn love of 
truth and the inborn nobility of the freeman, Tightness of belief cannot be considered as a 
value of religiosity. All Indo-European forms of belief, so long as they maintained the 
pure, traditional Nordic spirit, have remained free from any rigid doctrine of belief or 
dogma and from the worship of a revealed word. Hence it follows that under the original 
Indo-Europeans there arose no teachers to instruct the people in their beliefs, no 

Theologians, and no priesthood holier and more elevated than the rest of the people. In 
this respect it is also a fact that Indo-European religious communities have never become 
churches. The churchifying of a belief is again an assertion of the spirit of the Oriental 
(desert lands) race or of the joint effect of Oriental and Hither- Asiatic race spirit. 

There is yet another reason why no church could arise amongst the Indo-Europeans. A 
church as a sacred and sanctifying device for a community of men practising their special 
form of religiosity under priestly dominance, of men who desire to justify themselves 
before the deity — such a church can only take root, where "this world" is regarded as 
"unholy" and enticing to "sin". The result of the creation of such a church was to institute 
a separate holy region of the devout, a device to redeem hereditary sinful man (original 
sin) from the constriction of "this world" through its merciful means and to reveal a way 
of salvation to redemption. 

But where the world consists of ordered life and the deity itself has joy in the justified 
man, the church as such has no meaning. 

Pay homage to the God, 
Through the whole world! 
(Von Platen) 

Communion of belief will not therefore be shaped by the Indo-Europeans into a 
community with a special, rigid religious outlook. The formation of a community in this 
sense is opposed by the originality of the Nordic race soul of the individual Indo- 
European nations. "They live for themselves and apart" (colunt discreti ac diversi) said 
Tacitus (Germania, XVI), describing the Teutonic manner of settlement. More than a 
habit, it is indeed an expression of the spiritual nature of the Teuton, of the Teutonic joy 
in the mutual retention of distance between men. In this frame of mind a taciturn, 
confiding community of belief is possible, but not the formation of a community upon 
which a spirit can descend, in whose tension all individual human nature consumes itself. 

The Brahmanism of the Aryan Indians like the Druidism of the Celts, is an exception 
among the priesthoods of the Indo-European peoples, but it only developed as such over 
the course of the centuries, reflecting alien admixtures, customs and influences. 

Indo-European religiosity will never be able to unfold in its purity in a church- 
community but certainly in a State whose structure is in accordance with the racial 
nature. In the Gau region of the Teutons, in the civitas of the Romans, in the polls of the 
Hellenes, i.e. in those folk orders in which Indo-European men organised their nation- 
states along lines peculiar to their own disposition, Indo-European religiosity has been 
able to develop in the purest of all forms. The individual Indo-European removed himself 
apart from men when he wished to pray (cf. Odyssey, XII, 33), in contrast with the 
practice of the Semitic peoples, for whom prayer was a communal rite. But in 
Xenophon's Oikonomikos (XI, 8), an official state prayer is mentioned, which implores 
of the Gods to send down on them "health, bodily strength, understanding between 
friends, salvation in war and well-being". Here the community of belief is a national not a 

religious community, and in such a kingdom Indo-European religiosity flowers to 

Inborn Indo-European religiosity will unfold much more easily in a definite mystical 
form than in belief in redemption and revelation or in churchly forms. What causes the 
Indo-Europeans to show interest in mystical views, is the possibility of direct relationship 
with the deity, the deepening of an ever vital urge to "reciprocal friendship between Gods 
and men" (Plato) and the implicit tendency towards the ideas of the universal deity 
(Pantheism). The idea of miraculous creation is alien to the Indo-European, and 
particularly in mysticism the idea of creation falls away. Mystical outlooks have easily 
grown out of the Indo-European; with the Indians in the Vedas and Upanishads, in 
Brahmanism, in Buddhism, with Hellenes in the expositions of Platonic thought which 
incorporated Plato's anamnesis in the mystical sense though weakened and alienated by 
oriental spirit in the thinking of Plotinus and his neo-Platonic followers in the Middle 
Ages. Where Indo-Europeans accepted alien beliefs, mystical thought has later set in 
against these beliefs, as is already found with the Christian Boethius (480-525), who in 
his work, Concerning Consolation Through Philosophy, advances viewpoints which he 
had taken over from Plato, the Stoics, the Neo-Pythagorians, and from Plotinus, rather 
than from Christian services. The same mystic revolt, tending towards a return to 
Pantheism, is found in the Sufism which arose amongst the Aryan Persians after their 
forcible conversion to Islam. It also began to stir in Europe as soon as the Nordic- 
Teutonic spirit began to express itself against the Roman-Christian belief. Meister 
Eckhart, possibly represents most strongly the development of mysticism as a result of 
the revolt of the Teutonic Indo-European spirit against Roman-Christianity. 

Chapter Six 

BUT Indo-European religiosity is not able to unfold truly in conformity with its nature in 
every form of mysticism; not for instance, in the mysticism of supersensual and sexual 
moods and abandonments: not in the mysticism of intoxicated excitement, in that 
enthusiasmos, in which man wishes to torture himself out of the bounds of his body in 
order to reach down into the essence of the deity; nor also in the manner of being 
enraptured or carried away, as in Islamic mysticism by the feeling of being torn away, 
overpowered by a transcendent God, by the mysticism which involves a dissolution of all 
barriers, an immersion and swimming in formless un-becoming. All such trends are 
opposed to the Indo-European view of the ordered shaping of the world and the Indo- 
European feeling of duty to battle against destructive powers, against Utgard. Therefore 
the mysticism of self-seclusion (myein), of retreat from the world, of inaction and the 
extinction of the will or even of the senses, of excessive contemplation, the so called 
quietistic mysticism — is not the mysticism of the Indo-Europeans. However much as 
calmness may be valued by the Indo-Europeans, deep as the insight he will acquire again 
and again in self-immersion or in the pure contemplation of things without activity of 
will, the Indo-European can never give himself up to them entirely, and self assertion, the 
confrontation of destiny, is essential to his nature. Indo-European mysticism is thus the 
inner contemplation of high-minded (hochgemiiter) men: through sinking the morally 
purified individual soul (Indian: atman) into itself, the soul experiences itself in its 
ground as the universal soul (Indian: brahman). 

For this reason Indo-European mysticism as inward contemplation will confine itself 
again and again to contemplation which is unbounded in space — not secluded within 
itself, but open, and far seeing, such as is represented most beautifully of all through the 
far-aiming gaze of the Apollo of Belvedere, by whose statue Winckelmann was so moved 
and which he described so stirringly! With such vision the Indo-European experiences the 

Von Gebirg zum Gebirg 
schwebet der ewige Geist 
ewigen Lebens ahndevoll. 

From mountain to mountain, 
Hovers the eternal spirit 
of everlasting life ominously. 
(Goethe: An Schwager Kronos) 

At great moments, Indo-European nature thus participates in a vision, a theoria, a one 
and all {hen kai pan) in the All-One, which is already taught by the older Upanishads in 
India 34 and then — each in his own way — by the great early Hellenic thinkers, such as 
Heraclitus, Xenophon and Parmenides. 35 A universal teaching of Indo-European kind, the 
Vedanta philosophy, 36 was announced in India at the beginning of the ninth century A.D. 

by the Brahman thinker, Sankara. Since it came to be known in Europe and North 
America it has influenced many thinking men. The same religiosity breaks through 
Christian dogma in the Nordic-German mysticism of reality, which H. Mandel has 
described. 37 

The wide vision of the Indo-European, which was represented most beautifully of all 
through far-aiming Apollo, can develop into a dedication to a universe without beginning 
and without end such as Heraclitus announced, or it can emerge as that feeling of identity 
with the universe which has been described as nature mysticism. Josef Strzygowski (Die 
Landschaft in der nordischen Kunst, p. 256) has described the plastic art of the Indo- 
European as the "feeling" of being one with the universe and its expanse. In such nature 
mysticism the Indo-European width of vision and inner contemplation are combined. 
Western (i.e. European) landscape painting, above all that of the Teutonic peoples, and 
landscape lyricism, above all in England and Germany, but also in Holderlin's 
Hyperion display the same feeling of identity with Nature. 

From the Indo-Iranian belief in the Gods of antiquity (Polytheism), Spitama Zarathustra 
created in approximately the ninth century B.C. the first teaching of and belief in One 
God (Monotheism) in the history of religions. The Gods who had been common to the 
Indians and Iranians now passed into the background behind the one Ahura Mazda, after 
whom Mazdaism is named. These other Gods, preserved in India, in Iran became the 
sacred immortals (amesha spentas) the representatives of the moral virtues. They were 
later regarded as the messengers (Greek: angeloi) of Ahura Mazda, and the archangels 
created by Jewish and Christian legends were modelled on them. Spitama Zarathustra 
erected his monotheistic form of belief in a one-sided way, purely based upon morality, 
but in so doing he contradicted hereditary Indo-European religiosity. Hermann Lommel 
(Von arischer Religion, Geistige Arbeit, Year 1, No. 23, pp. 5-6) has proved, however, 
that, arising from Iranian popular belief, a natural religiosity again and again broke out in 
Mazdaism. A curious example of these outbreaks was the creation by the Persian kings, 
of landscape parks and gardens, whose fame spread far and wide. One of these gardens 
was called pairidesa and from it derived the Old Testament idea of Paradise and of the 
Garden of Eden (Josef Strzygowski: Spuren Indogermanischen Glaubens in der 
Bildenden Kunst, 1936, pp. 279 et seq.; G. Widengren: Hochgottglaube im Alten Iran, 


Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1938, pp. 6, 151 et seq. and 171 et seq., 235, 240 et seq., 
372 et seq.; A. T. Olmstead: History of the Persian Empire, 1952, pp. 20, 62, 170, 315, 
434; P. A. J. Arberry: The Legacy of Persia, 1953, pp. 5, 35, 260-261, 271). According to 
Xenophon (Oikonomikos, IV, 20-22), the younger Kurash (Cyrus), who later fell in the 
battle of Kunaxa (401 B.C.), showed the Spartan Lysandros (Lysander) with pride his 
Paradise (paradeisos), a park laid out according to his plans with rows of beautiful trees, 
part of which he had planted himself. 

Nature religiosity has also been expressed in Iranian poetry and plastic art in the 
descriptions of the "Landscape filled with the glory of the deity" (khvarenah — Josef 
Strzygowski: Die Landschaft in der nordischen Kunst, pp. 143, 261 et seq.), akin to that 
of Indo-European aristocratic farmers, and the landscape parks of eighteenth century 

It was Nature religiosity that filled the Persian king Khshayarsha (Greek: Xerxes), from 
the family of the Achaemenides, the king with the "flashing dark blue eyes" (Aeschylus: 
The Persians, 81). Herodotus (VII, 31) reports that, when on the march to Lydia and the 
Hellespont, the king caught sight of a beautiful plane tree, he had it hung with golden 
jewellery and guarded by a man from his bodyguard. This story called forth the famous 
Largo by Friedrich Handel, which was not, as generally assumed, a church composition, 
but a further example of Indo-European nature religiosity: the Persian king of Handel's 
opera Serse (Xerxes) praises the beautiful plane tree in song in the Largo Ombra maifu: 
o mio platano amatof 

Bismarck and Moltke were talking one day in Berlin after the war was ended in 1871 and 
Bismarck asked the field marshal what, after such events and successes, they could still 
enjoy in life together. After a pause, Moltke said simply, "to see a tree growing". The 
love and worship of trees as Erik Therman (Eddan och dess Odestragik, 1938, pp. 124 et 
seq.; cf. also Giacomo Devoto: Origini Indoeuropee, 1961, pp. 251-252) has also shown 
was one of the characteristics of Teutonic religiosity. 

Nature religiosity, the religiosity of aristocratic Indo-European farmers, also permeates 
the Georgica of Vergilius Maro (Vergil), the works of the painters Claude Lorrain and 
William Turner, Gottfried Keller's poetry and his novel Der griine Heinrich, and the 
novel Nachsommer by Adalbert Stifter. Inborn nature mysticism has again and again 
removed far away from the teachings of the Church many Christian theologians, as for 
example the Weimar court chaplain, Herder. The North American, Ralph Waldo Emerson 
(1803-1882), resigned his office as pastor, when he could no longer reconcile the 
mystical concept of a world soul, which was revealed to him in the sublimity of 
landscape and in the demands of conscience, with the teachings of the Church. His 
apologia, entitled Nature, appeared in the year 1836. 

A surrender to the Cosmos, which on account of its being without beginning and end, 
cannot be called creation, a devotion to liberation from time and space, thus a Nirvana 
during lifetime, was experienced by Richard Jefferies (1848-1887), an English mystic, 
whose life and work, The Story of My Heart, has remained almost unknown in his own 

Nature mysticism — contrary to the intention of the author, who thought in materialistic 
terms under the influence of Epicurus — can be seen, in the rich and grandiose poem of 
the Roman, Titus Lucretius Carus, De rerum natura. Even his introductory invocation to 
the Goddess Venus, in whom, however, Lucretius, as the heir to rational Hellenic 
thought, no longer believed, signifies more than mythological embellishment: it begets a 
spiritual fullness of poetry, a hen kai pan, a unio mystica, of the discerning poet and 
thinker with the universe as the object of his knowledge. The remoteness of a mystic also 
corresponds to the Roman poet's moral and religious goal: "to be able to view everything 
with a calm spirit" (V, 1203) — pacata posse omnia mente tueri. 

Otto Regenbogen (Lucretius: Seine Gestalt in seinem Gedicht, Neue Wege zur Antike, 
Heft I, 1932, pp. 47, 54, 61, 75 ff., 81 ff., 85 et seq.) has shown that the Epicurian thinker 

Lucretius and the poet Lucretius were not one and the same person; but De rerum natura 
provides sufficient proof of the fact that Lucretius had departed from the materialist 
Epicurus and his teaching on the motions of atoms — apart from the fact that the 
Roman's poem was Stoic in spirit and more austere and manly, indeed more 
commanding, than the teaching of the Hellenic thinker. If Lucretius rejected all religio in 
general, then this is explained by the fact that the rural religiosity which originally 
formed the religio of the Latin-Sabine Romans, had already been penetrated, through the 
influence of the neighbouring Etruscans, with many gloomy superstitions and repellent 
customs. However, such a rejection of every religion speaks, as Regenbogen has said, 
more respect for the highest and ultimate things, than all the religious receptiveness of the 

Was Lucretius a materialist as well as a nature mystic? Goethe, the poet of nature 
religiosity (and as such not a materialist), was going to write a study of Lucretius in 
which he intended to portray him as a "natural philosopher and poet" (Goethe: Von 
Knebel's Translation of Lucretius, Cotta's Jubilee edition, Vol. XXXVII, p. 218), and he 
took an active interest in the translation by his friend Karl Ludwig von Knebel, who had 
made a masterly rendering of De rerum natura into German. Karl Biichner (Romische 
Literaturgeschichte, 1962, pp. 236, 246, 249) has pointed out that Lucretius was the first 
Roman thinker to discover the spirit (mens), a spirit which liberates through knowledge: 
Lucretius discovered meaning "only in the superiority of the perceptive spirit", and that 
liberation could be achieved solely by belief in the "power of the spirit and of reason". 
Liberation to the timeless value of "a firm, lasting spirit" was the religious and moral goal 
of the poet. Genus infelix humanus (V, 1 194) the unfortunate species of humanity, was 
looked on by the poet as men who were still bound by superstition, incapable of attaining 
the freedom of the spirit. 

But if Lucretius the thinker thus portrayed for the Romans the capacity of perception, the 
spirit {mens), then Lucretius the poet, in contrast to Epicurus, who in his nature teachings 
had proceeded from Democritus, must have had a premonition or have understood that 
while feeling (sensitivity), consciousness and the perceptive activity of man were linked 
to the material activity of the brain and body and hence, in the last analysis, as 
Democritus and Epicurus had taught, to the movements of atoms, yet they were not in 
fact derived from such movements, and cannot be explained by them. Spirit becomes 
alive only in the tension between a discerning (perceptive) consciousness which faces, as 
Subject, an Object of perception. While Lucretius the Epicurean followed the 
materialistic atomic teaching of the Hellene, the poet Lucretius discovered a spirit which 
is free to experience natural religiosity. It is worth commenting here that Walter F. Otto 
(Das Wort der Antike, 1962, pp. 293 et seq.) also regarded both Epicurus and Lucretius as 
poets of a religious mind. 

In Faust's monologue in the scene "Wald und Hohle" (Faust, I, Verse 3217, et seq.) 
Goethe has linked both with each other: the study of the Object Nature, in the sense of 
Lucretius the thinker is linked in antithesis with a sensitive and discerning consciousness 
as Subject namely — the "secret, deep miracles in one's own breast" (Verse 3232 et seq.) 
— giving rise to a power of reflection without which a true understanding of magnificent 

Nature cannot be grasped. With Goethe, it is not possible, as with Lucretius, to separate 
the poet from the thinker. But Goethe, like his friend Knebel, was enthused by the latter' s 
natural religiosity which he expressed in his Poetry and Truth (Second part, sixth book, 
Goethe's Complete Works, Cotta's Jubilee edition, Vol. XXIII, p. 10): "God can be 
worshipped in no more beautiful way than by the spontaneous welling-up from one's 
breast of mutual converse with Nature". 

Algernon Swinburne (1837-1909) has described this hen kai pan recently in more 
appropriate language in his poem Hertha. Thus a metaphysical need as Schopenhauer 
called it, has again and again called forth poems and semi-philosophical ideal poems (F. 
A. Lange) of the All-One. Western thinkers, for example Schelling, have however, 
attempted to convey the teaching of Universal Oneness more convincingly through the 
medium of an unfortunate philosophy of identity and more recently through an even less 
convincing form of Monism. In his Darstellung meines Systems der Philosophie (1801) 
Schelling wished to prove that the perceptive consciousness and its object, Nature, were 
one. Time conditioned poetical moods are possible from a oneness outwards, but not 
judgment of thoughts which are timelessly valid. Any thinker, who wishes to prove in a 
comprehensible manner that material and spirit or body and soul, or thinking and Being, 
or subject and object, are One and the same, or identical, overlooks the fact that such 
terms as material or power or spirit or Being already correspond to the judgments of a 
discerning subject, which faces an object — Riickert's "object of knowledge", even if 
this object is one's own body or the personal spiritual stimulation of the thinker. 

How can the One or the Universal or the All-One, which according to their nature are 
indissolubly one, be split into two, namely into a perceiving subject and an object of 
perception? How can they so be arranged that they become released from themselves in 
such a way that, thinking themselves in opposition to each other, they understand each 
other and name themselves accordingly? Nevertheless poets and enthusiastic poetic 
thinkers of the Indo-European peoples have again and again been compelled to express 
by unnatural imagery, what cannot be imparted in comprehensible language as a 
generally valid judgment. In this light we must examine the different kinds of Pantheism 
and Mysticism, as also Goethe's "God-nature", an Indo-European exposition of 
Spinoza's Deus sive natura, which resulted from Spinoza incorporating Indo-European 
ideas from the Stoics and the Pantheist Giordano Bruno. 

Any thinker who wishes to equate God, the world and human spiritual life as one, such as 
is attempted by some poets at inspired moments, will in the Indo-European domain be 
confronted by destiny — as has been shown above, an all too difficult object of 
perception to be redeemed in a becalming or inspiring Universal-Oneness. 

How was it possible, that belief in a God and Gods among the Indo-European peoples 
became transmitted, first with the Indians, then with the other peoples, and finally also 
with the Islamised and Christianised peoples, into Pantheism and Mysticism? 

Hildebrecht Hommel has shown that the figure of a heavenly father originally common 
to all Indo-Europeans — known by the Indians as Djaus pitar, by the Hellenes as Zeus 

Pater, and by the Romans as Jupiter (from Diupater) — was elevated above the other 
Gods at an early point in time and recognised as a god of the Universe by the Teutons, as 
the Icelander Snorri proves — the "All Father" (in Old Nordic: alfadir), which Indo- 
European mysticism later discovered in the soul of the religious man. In upper Bavaria 
and in Tyrol the description Heavenly Father has been preserved amongst the farmers and 
transferred to the Christian God — an orderer and protector of a universe without 
beginning and end, and hence, as the Hellenes said, a "Father of Gods and Men", in the 
Christian God, the creator of a universe with a beginning in time. The transition from the 
father of the heavens, a term which possibly belongs to the Bronze Age, to an inner 
worldly and spiritual God, was gradually accomplished by the Indo-Europeans towards 
the end of their early period, which was full of Sagas of the Gods. In India this transition 
took place from the ninth century B.C. onwards in the Upanishads, in which the world 
was not seen as the creation of a God: the universe was a timeless essence, the brahman, 
which dwells in all things and all souls. Paul Deussen (Vedanta und Platonismus im 
Lichte der Kantischen Philosophie, Comenius-Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte, Zweites 
Heft, 1922, pp. 19-20) — has shown that, even in the most recent songs of the Rig Veda, 
the existence of the traditional Indo-Aryan world of the Gods is doubted, and that even 
here — as later in Hellas — philosophic thought forced its way through as a premonition 
or certainty of the unity of all existence. In the Rig Veda (I, 164) it is said: "What is the 
One, poets call manifold" (K. F. Geldner: Der Rig-Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche 
Ubersetzt, Erster Teil, 1951, p. 236). The simple men of remote agricultural communities 
did not participate readily in this transition from the manifold Gods of the universe to a 
sole God. The isolated Italic farmers still worshipped and celebrated their native Gods in 
festivals, the dii indigentes of the early Roman period, when in the capital, Rome, after 
the Olympic Gods of the Hellenes had been equated to the ancient Roman divinities 
(numina), an inner-worldly deity had already been anticipated and conceived by thinking 
men. The general Indo-European transition from the Gods of the Sagas to Pantheism and 
Mysticism, which took place amongst those who by choice or by force were converted to 
Christianity or Islam, despite the resistance of true believers, can be briefly portrayed as 

After their early period and in the middle age of their development — on the way "from 
myth to Logos" (W. Nestle) — the Bronze Age idea of the Gods and God gradually grew 
dim among logical and resolutely thinking men in the Indo-European peoples, whose 
hereditary dispositions directed them towards reason. This school of free thought 
recognised that it was childish to imagine that the Gods lived somewhere out in space, 
reaching down into the human world, and these ideas necessarily carried less and less 
conviction to thinking men, when they became convinced that the gods too were 
governed by destiny. Thus there gradually evolved the idea of an inner-worldly and 
inner-spiritual deity (Pantheism) and of a God working within us (Mysticism) — the 
dominans ille in nobis deus, as Marcus Tullius Cicero (Tusculanae disputationes, I, 74) 
called this divinity. Thus Pantheism was joined by rational mysticism, perception and 
inner experience, which postulates that the individual immersing himself in himself 
experiences self-comprehension in its ultimate form as the universal soul, and concludes 
that the atman, or individual soul, is, in the final analysis, a part of brahman, as the 
Indians described such mysticism. 

The pantheistic width of vision and mystical inner contemplation of the Indo-Europeans 
were interchangeable — if not in comprehensible thought, at least in poetical moods. The 
power pervading the universe and the power felt by the soul as it sank into the universal 
soul could be felt to flow together in one. In the first years of his stay at Weimar, Goethe 
happily agreed with a sentence which he found in Cicero's de Divinatione (I, 49): 
everything is filled by divine spirit and hence the souls of men are moved by communion 
with the divine souls (cumque omnia completa et referta sint aeterno sensu et mente 
divina, necesse est contagione divinorum animorum animos humanos commoveri). This 
again is the premonition of a deity which expresses the divine in the universe as the basis 
of the soul. 

The fearless thinkers among the Teutons, above all among the North Teutons, to whom 
the world of the Gods of the Aesir and Vanir had become a childish idea, must have 
recognised long before the penetration of Christianity the existence of an inner-worldly 
and inner-spiritual deity, a brahman, or a theion, as the Hellenes called it, a daimonion, 
such as Socrates felt working within himself. It is a striking fact, to which too little 
attention has been paid hitherto, that the word "God" was neuter in gender in the 
Teutonic languages (Das Gott, or, in Old Nordic: gud) and that it was only after the false 
interpretation by Christian converters that the word acquired male gender. Thus thinking 
Indians no longer spoke of Gods even at an early period, but of a deity governing the 
world (dewata), which was also called the brahman. This is the deus in nobis of Hellenic 
and Roman poets and thinkers. 

When Christian missionaries asked the north Teutons who or what they believed in, they 
received the reply which centuries previously the south Teutons — who had believed in 
Das Gott (neuter) — might also have given, that they believed in their power {matt) or 
strength (magin), a power working within them, a deity filling the religious man, an 
inner-worldly and inner-spiritual deity. Such an answer must have seemed to the 
missionaries, as it would to many present day commentators, a mere boast of power or an 
idolatrous presumption, while in fact it must be understood as a factual "The God" (Das 
Gott) corresponding to the dominans ille in nobis deus. But it is easy to understand that 
the missionaries, who in Christianity had accepted the extra-mundane, transcendent ideas 
of a "personal" God, from the Semitic peoples, were at a loss when confronted by faith in 
a destiny ruling within men. 

The pagan north Germans, who still believed that the divine was present in all "men of 
high mind", were called Godless (gudlauss or gudlausir menn) by their converted 
countrymen, who were spiritually more simple, and therefore could not understand inner 
spiritual power or strength. 

The men with more insight among the Hellenes would have understood the neuter God 
— Das Gott — of the Teutons, for it corresponded to their own to theion. Thinking 
Hellenes had already long replaced the plurality of the Gods by the single deity and later 
by the single figure called The Mighty (to Kreitton). The orator Dion of Prusa, known as 
Chrysostom (40-120), and the philosopher Plotinus (204-270), would not have 
misunderstood the Icelanders: Might and Power as descriptions of the deity were familiar 

to them. Dion of Prusa (XXXI, 11) says of the deeply prudent men of his time: "They 
simply combine all Gods together in one might (ischys) and power (dynamis)" and 
Plotinus expresses this in the Enneads (I, 6, 8) in the same way as Goethe, who read this 
passage in the year 1805: 

Lag ' nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft, 
wie konnt' uns Gottliches entziicken? 

If the Gods own power did not lie within us, 
how could the divine enrapture us? 
(Zahme Xenien, III, 725, 26) 

The might or power of which the Indo-Europeans had a presentiment, this unity of the 
deity was split up by thinkers in the realm of human experience into the trinity of "The 
Good, the True and the Beautiful", but in such a way that these ideas or words remained 
close neighbours in Hellas. Here and there with the later Hellenic-Roman thinkers the 
true could easily be understood as the good and the beautiful, aletheia could signify both 
intellectual truth as well as moral truth, and in the kalok 'agathia the ideal of sifting and 
selection, of eugeneia or human disciplined, choice bodily beauty and moral fitness, and 
virtue {arete) became linked with one another. Since Plato's Banquet, Indo-European 
thinkers have recognised truth, beauty and virtue as life values which pointed beyond the 
realm of experience to the divine, to the brahman, or the concept of Das Gott (neuter) — 
to a deity which through truth rendered the thinking man capable of knowledge. 

The reappearance of Indo-European religious attitudes, also explains why Christian 
theologians as well as thinkers and poets of the Christianised West again and again 
revolted against the concepts of an other-worldly, personal God — of a God who had 
created the world from nothing and had populated it with creatures according to his 
design. The French mystic and scholar, Amalric of Bena, who died in Paris about 1206, 
was even cursed after his death by the Church because he rationally rejected the teachings 
of God as a creator, and because he had asserted that such a God must be responsible for 
the sorrow of all living creatures and for the vices of man, since he had created them all. 
Amalric, the Pantheistic mystic, knew as a result of his Indo-European disposition, that 
the justification (Theodicy) by the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-merciful God, of the 
evils of his creation, was impossible. 

The outlook of Amalric of Bena, however, had already been expressed in north India 
after it had been penetrated by Indo-European migrants in the pre-Christian centuries and 
especially by Samkhya teaching, by Jains and Buddhists, who guarded themselves against 
non-Indo-European theistic religions infiltrating from Southern India: God the creator 
must be reproached with having either created or permitted the existence of liars, thieves 
and murderers. 

The Indo-European concept of destiny relieved the Gods from responsibility for the evil 
of earthly life, and Epicurus, who himself no longer believed in Gods (cf. Eduard 
Schwartz: Charakterkopfe aus der Antike, 1943, p. 147; Epicurus: Philosophie der 

Freude, translated by Johannes Mewaldt, 1956), advised his contemporaries who did, to 
imagine them as creatures, who lived a blessed untroubled life amongst the stars without 
bothering about men, neither using nor harming them. Such an idea had already appeared 
in the Iliad (XXIV, 525) centuries before Epicurus. There Achilles attempts to console 
Priamos bowed down by sorrow, with the words: 

Thus have the Gods determined it for the wretched men, 

To live sorrowfully, but they themselves are struck by no sorrow. 

Shakespeare (King Lear, IV, 1) puts the same embittered thoughts on Gloucester's lips: 

As flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods — 
They kill us for their sport. 

This idea was adopted by Holderlin in Hyperion 's Song of Destiny and by Tennyson in 
his poem The Lotus Eaters. Kant, in his Critique of the Power of Judgment (Part II, p. 
85), defended the Hellenes and Romans in these words: "One cannot count it so highly to 
their blame, if they conceived their Gods ... as limited, for when they studied the 
artifices and course of Nature, they encountered the good and evil, the purposeful and 
pointless in it . . . and only with the greatest difficulty could they have formed a different 
judgment of its cause". 

Theodicies were not necessary for the Indo-Europeans, because over the Gods stood 
merciless destiny. (Virgil: inexorabile fatum). Within Christianity however, Pantheism 
and Mysticism again and again sought to set themselves against the church's teachings of 
an all-powerful, all-knowing, predestined and yet all-good creator. The church answered 
with condemnation and burning; examples are numerous: Origen, Scotus Eriugena, Hugo 
of St. Victor, Amalric of Bena, David of Dinant, Meister Eckhart, Nikolaus von Kues, 
Sebastian Frank, Miguel Serveto (Servetus), Vanini, Valentin Weigel, Jakob Bohme, 
Angelus Silesius, Fenelon, Herder, Fichte, Schelling, Schleiermacher, Shelley, Tegner, 
Kuno Fischer and others. 

Thus the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans, which appears whenever their nature can 
unfold itself freely, emerges only in that form which religious science has described as 
nature religions. Here however, it may be said, that Indo-European religiosity in the West 
has also been repeatedly misinterpreted and misunderstood, for the outlook is widespread 
that the more the faith, all the greater the religiosity, which is to be found where men feel 
drawn to "supernatural" values. In a far more inward sense than the description nature 
religion commonly implies, the belief and religiosity of the Indo-Europeans represent the 
natural, balanced conduct of the worshipping mind, and the heroic power of thought as it 
is found in the honest Nordic man. Powerful spontaneous thought and ordered worship of 
the deity here strengthen and deepen one another. The more richly a man cultivates these 
facilities the more perfect in his humanness, the more truly religious does he become at 
the same time. 

No pressing forward to God is possible in this attitude of mind and spirit, no rigid belief, 
no pretence of a duty to believe, no anxiety to please the deity; freedom and dignity and 
the composure of the noble spirited, even under deep stress, are characteristic of the 
purest religiosity. Indeed, one can almost say that Indo-European religiosity and morality 
(in contrast to the commands and penalties of a God who promises reward and 
punishment) emanates from the dignity of man, the dignity of humanitas — from a 
dignitas which is characteristic of the great-minded and well-born. According to Cicero, a 
great and strong-minded person (fortis animus et magnus) wishes to carry himself with 
honour (honestum — de officiis, I, 72-73, 94-95, 101, 106, 130; III, 23-24) because in 
such conduct reason controls desire. Thus the Roman concept of humanitas as interpreted 
above, presupposes "the centuries long breeding of an aristocratic type of man" (Franz 
Beckmann: Humanitas, Ursprung und Idee, 1952, p. 7). Hence Hellenic-Roman 
humanitas cannot become a morality for everyone; in Hellas it was the morality of the 
eleutheroi, in Rome that of the ingenui, or of the free-born, and it could not be transferred 
to the freedmen (liberti). In the Middle Ages the church used the word humanitas to 
describe human lowliness (humilitas) when faced by the extra-mundial, other worldly 
God. It was not until the advent of the scholars of the Renaissance in Florence, around 
1400 A.D., that humanitas was again understood to mean human dignity, and conceived 
of as a duty which it was incumbent on man to observe. 

When today praise is lavished on so-called works of art, it is almost tragic to recall that 
Friedrich Schiller demanded this very humanitas and dignitas above all from artists; just 
as Marcus Tullius Cicero did of the Italici: 

The dignity of man is given into your hands. 

Preserve it! 

It falls with you, it will rise with you. 

As far as the mature religiosity of the Indo-Europeans is concerned, their morality does 
not, like the morality of the Bible, spring from a commandment of God, from a "Thou 
shalt not!" (Leviticus, xix. 18; Matthew, v. 43; Luke, vi. 27). Indo-European morality 
springs from the positive dignity of the high-minded man, to whom humanity or human 
love, which may best be described as good-will, comes as second nature — maitri in 
Sanskrit, or metta in Pali, or eumeneia, philanthropia or sympatheia in Greek, or 
benevolentia or comitas in Latin. Biblical morality is of alien law (heteronom). Indo- 
European morality is of its own law (autonom). Compared with the biblical admonition to 
love thy neighbour (agape), which originally only applied to the fellow members of the 
tribe, the concept of good-will is perhaps more valid, since love cannot be commanded. 

Burkhard Wilhelm Leist (Alt-arisches Jus gentium, 1889, p. 173; Alt-arisches Jus civile, 
1892-96, pp. 228, 241, 381-82; 1892, Vol. I, p. 211) has proved that such humanity and 
good will already existed in the oldest legal records of the Indo-Europeans, that Indo- 
European human dignity had demanded that in man one should always see one's fellow 
and meet him with aequitas, or good will (maitri, metta), one of the highest values of 
ancient India, and above all of Buddhist morality. According to the Odyssey (VI, 207; 
VII, 165; IX, 270) Zeus himself guides the worthy man who implores him for help and 

avenges strangers who are cast out and those in need of protection: Zeus xenios, who 
looks after strangers and all those in want, corresponds to the dii hospitales of the 
Romans. The Edda advises in the Teachings to Loddfafnir (21, 23): 

Never show 

Scorn and mockery 

To the stranger and traveller! 

Never scold the stranger, 

Never drive him away from the gate! 

Be helpful to the hungering! 

(Edda, Vol. II, 1920, translated from the German of Felix Genzmer, pp. 137-138.) 

However, to the Teutons, who according to Tacitus (Germania, XXI) were the most 
hospitable of all peoples, "moral demands were not divine commands", for them a good 
deed had no reward, an evil deed expected no punishment by the deity (Hans Kuhn: Sitte 
und Sittlichkeit, in Germanische Altertumskunde, edited by Hermann Schneider, 1938, p. 
177). Man's attempt to wheedle himself into favour with the Gods by offering sacrifices 
is censured by the Edda (Havamal, 145): 

Better not to have implored for anything, 
than to have sacrificed too much; 
the gift looks for reward. 

The morality of human dignity is not inspired on account of the prospect of a reward in 
heaven, but for its own sake: nihil praeter id quod honestum sit propter se esse 
expetendum. This was how Cicero understood the Roman religiosity and morality (de 
officiis, I, 72-75, 94-95, 106, 130; III, 23-24, 33; Tusculanae disputationes, V, 1), which 
both originate from ancient Italic and hence Indo-European nature. Such aims as the 
Hellenic kalok 'agathia (beauty and fitness), and that of the Roman humanitas — 
humanitas being understood in the era of the Roman aristocratic republic as a duty or 
ideal of full manhood, of human wholeness, or of Noble nature 40 — such goals of heroic 
perfection are therefore particularly expressive of Indo-European religiosity which offers 
the worship of a resolute, heroic heart. 

It can be shown, and could be proved in detail, that in Europe and North America, the 
noblest men and women, even those who admitted to accepting a church belief handed 
down to them, behaved and spoke in the decisive hours of their lives according to the 
religious disposition, actions and morality of the Indo-European. 

Indo-European spiritual history had commenced at the beginning of the first pre-Christian 
millennium with outstanding works like the Vedas (cf. K. F. Geldner: Vedismus und 
Brahmanismus, Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, Vol. IX, 1928) and the Upanishads, 
which Schopenhauer (Parerga und Paralipomena, Chapter XVI) called not only the 
"consolation of his life", but also the "consolation of his death". The Indo-Europeans 
entered the stage of world history with Kurash (Cyrus) II, the Persian king of the 

Hakamanish family of the Achaemenides, who ruled from 559 to 529 B.C., and founded 
the great Persian kingdom which extended from India to Egypt (cf. Albert T. Olmstead: A 
History of the Persian Empire, 1948, pp. 34 et seq.). The Hellenic historian Xenophon 
wrote about Kurash the Great in his Kyrupaideia. The Persians under the Achaemenides, 
with the Hellenes, "brothers and sisters of the same blood" (Aeschylus: The Persians, 
Verse 185), are described by Bundahishn (XIV), a Persian saga book of the ninth century 
(G. Widengren: Iranische Geisteswelt, 1961, p. 75) as "fair and radiant eyed". According 
to Herodotus (I, 136) they taught their sons "to ride, to shoot with the bow and to speak 
the truth". The religion of Mazdaism regarded lies and deceit (German: Trug, Persian: 
drug) as a basic evil, truth as a basic virtue. 

Since the advent of the twentieth century the Indo-Europeans have begun to withdraw 
from the spiritual history of the world. Particularly today, what is described as most 
"progressive" in music, the plastic arts and literature of the "Free West" is already no 
longer Indo-European in spirit. 

Chapter S 


THE greatest ideas of mankind have been conceived in the lands between India and 
Germania, between Iceland and Benares (where Buddha began to teach) amongst the 
peoples of Indo-European language; and these ideas have been accompanied by the Indo- 
European religious attitude which represents the highest attainments of the mature spirit. 
When in January 1804, in conversation with his colleague, the philologist Riemer, 
Goethe expressed the view that he found it "remarkable that the whole of Christianity had 
not brought forth a Sophocles", his knowledge of comparative religion was restricted by 
the knowledge of his age, yet he had unerringly chosen as the precursor of an Indo- 
European religion the poet Sophocles, "typical of the devout Athenian ... in his highest, 
most inspired form", 41 a poet who represented the religiosity of the people, before the 
people (demos) of Athens had degenerated into a mass (ochlos). But where apart from the 
Indo-Europeans, has the world produced a more devout man with such a great soul as the 
Athenian, Sophocles? 

Where outside the Indo-European domain have religions arisen, which have combined 
such greatness of soul with such high flights of reason (logos, ratio) and such wide vision 
(theoria)! Where have religious men achieved the same spiritual heights as Spitama 
Zarathustra, as the teachers of the Upanishads, as Homer, as Buddha and even as 
Lucretius Carus, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Shelley? 

Goethe wished that Homer's songs might become our Bible. Even before the discovery of 
the spiritual heights and power of the pre-Christian Teuton, but especially after Lessing, 
Winckelmann and Heinrich Voss, the translator of Homer, the Indo-European outlook 
renewed itself in Germany, recalling a world of the spirit which was perfected by great 
German poets and thinkers during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 

Since Goethe's death (1832), and since the death of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1835), the 
translator of the devout Indo-European Bhagavad Gita, this Indo-European spirit, which 
also revealed itself in the pre-Christian Teuton, has vanished. 

Goethe had a premonition of this decline of the West: even in October 1801 he remarked 
in conversation with the Countess von Egloffstein, that spiritual emptiness and lack of 
character were spreading — as if he had foreseen what today characterises the most 
celebrated literature of the Free West. It may be that Goethe had even foreseen, in the 
distant future, the coming of an age in which writers would make great profits by the 
portrayal of sex and crime for the masses. As Goethe said to Eckermann, on 14th March 
1830, "the representation of noble bearing and action is beginning to be regarded as 
boring, and efforts are being made to portray all kinds of infamies". Previously in a letter 
to Schiller of 9th August 1797, he had pointed out at least one of the causes of the 
decline: in the larger cities men lived in a constant frenzy of acquisition and consumption 
and had therefore become incapable of the very mood from which spiritual life arises. 
Even then he was tortured and made anxious, although he could observe only the 

beginnings of the trend, the sight of the machine system gaining the upper hand; he 
foresaw that it would come and strike (Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre, Third Book, 
Chapter 15, Cotta's Jubilee edition, Vol. XX, p. 190). In a letter to his old friend Zelter, 
on 6th June 1825, he pronounced it as his view that the educated world remained rooted 
in mediocrity, and that a century had begun "for competent heads, for practical men with 
an easy grasp of things, who . . . felt their superiority above the crowd, even if they 
themselves are not talented enough for the highest achievements"; pure simplicity was no 
longer to be found, although there was a sufficiency of simple stuff; young men would be 
excited too early and then torn away by the vortex of the time. Therefore Goethe exhorted 
youth in his poem Legacy of the year 1829: 

Join yourself to the smallest host! 

In increasing degree since approximately the middle of the nineteenth century poets and 
writers as well as journalists — the descendants of the "competent heads" by whom 
Goethe was alarmed even in the year 1801 — have made a virtue out of necessity by 
representing characterlessness as a fact. With Thomas Mann this heartless 
characterlessness first gained world renown. Mann used his talent to conceal his spiritual 
desolation by artifices which have been proclaimed by contemporary admirers as 
insurpas sable. But the talent of the writers emulating Thomas Mann no longer sufficed 
even to conceal their spiritual emptiness, although many of their readers, themselves 
spiritually impoverished, have not noticed this. 

The freedom of the Press, which was introduced through the constitution of May 1816 
into the Duchy of Weimar and which had already been demanded by Wieland with his 
superficial judgment would, Goethe declared, do nothing more than give free rein to 
authors with a deep contempt of public opinion (Zahme Xenien, Goethes Samtliche 
Werke, Cotta's Jubilee edition, Vol. IV, p. 47; Annalen (Annals) 1816, same edition, Vol. 
XXX, p. 298). In the Annalen of 1816, he remarked that every right-thinking man of 
learning in the world foresaw the direct and incalculable consequences of this act with 
fright and regret. Thus even in his time, Goethe must have reflected how little the men of 
the Press, were capable of combining freedom with human dignity. 

When the descendants of the competent heads of the beginning of the nineteenth century 
rose, through their talents, to the upper classes, where due to a lower birthrate their 
families finally died out, the eliminating process of social climbing in Europe seized hold 
of less capable heads and bore them away into the vortex of the time. Their culture has 
been described most mercilessly by Friedrich Nietzsche in his lectures of the year 1871- 
72: Concerning the Future of Our Educational Institutions (Pocket edition, Vol. I, 1906, 
pp. 314, 332-333, 396). Nietzsche above all concentrated on famous contemporary 
writers, "the hasty and vain production, the despicable manufacturing of books, the 
perfected lack of style, the shapelessness and characterlessness or the lamentable dilution 
of their expressions, the loss of every aesthetic canon, the lust for anarchy and chaos" — 
which he described as if he had actually seen the most celebrated literature of the Free 
West, whose known authors no longer mastered their own languages even to the extent 
still demanded by popular school teachers around 1900. These vociferous heralds of the 

need for culture in an era of general education were rejected by Nietzsche who in this 
displayed true Indo-European views — as fanatical opponents of the true culture, which 
holds firm to the aristocratic nature of the spirit. If Nietzsche described the task of the 
West as to find the culture appropriate to Beethoven, then the serious observer today will 
recognise only too well the situation which Nietzsche foresaw and described as a 
laughing stock and a thing of shame. 

In the year 1797, Friedrich Schiller composed a poem: Deutsche Grosse. Full of 
confidence in the German spirit he expressed the view that defeat in war by stronger foes 
could not touch German dignity which was a great moral force. The precious possession 
of the German language would also be preserved. Schiller (Das Siegesfest) certainly 
knew what peoples had to expect of war: 

For Patrocles lies buried 
and Thersites comes back; 

but he must have imagined that the losses of the best in the fight could be replaced. The 
dying out of families of dignity and moral stature {me galop sychia and magnanimitas), 
had then not yet begun in Europe. 

In the year 1929, just a decade after the First World War had ended, that Peloponnesian 
war of the Teutonic peoples, which caused both in England and in Germany excessively 
heavy losses of gifted young men, of officers and aristocrats, Oskar Walzel (Die 
Geistesstromungen des 19. Jahrhunderts, 1929, p. 43), Professor of German literature at 
the university of Bonn, gave it as his opinion that after this war the trend to de- spiritualise 
Germany had gained ground far more rapidly than hitherto: "Is there in German history in 
general such an identical want of depth in men to be observed as at present?" But for the 
Germans it is poor consolation that this "de-spiritualising" is just as marked in other 
Western countries. Another sign of this trend is that today many famous writers are no 
longer capable of preserving the precious possession of the German language. Other 
Western languages are also neglecting their form and literature, but this again is poor 
consolation for the Germans. Such neglect is considered by many writers today as 
characteristic of, and part of the process of gaining their freedom and liberation from all 
traditional outlooks. Goethe criticised this as a false idea of freedom (Maxims and 
Reflections, Goethes Samtliche Werke, Cottas Jubilaumsausgabe, Vol. IV, p. 229) in the 
following words: 

"Everything which liberates our spirit, without increasing our mastery of ourselves, is 


Thus, by freedom Goethe also understood the dignity of the freeborn, not the nature and 
mode of life of the freed slave. 

Chapter E 


QUINTUS Horatius Flaccus (Carmina, III, 25, 27) has described the task of all art, 
especially of poetry, as being to create "nothing small and in a low manner" (nil parvum 
aut humili modo). Yet the most popular literature of the free West, and the culture of 
mass media, today emphasises the unimportant sexual experiences of unbridled men, 
often in a degrading and unclean manner, and this is described by many newspaper critics 
as "art". The churches also patronise such forms of art for the masses and attempt to 
secure the attendance of youth by offering religious Jazz and Negro rhythms. The best 
examples of pure sexual experience, as accomplished in the nil parvum aut humili modo 
of Horace, may be found in the truly Indo-European Homer. According to C. F. von 
Nagelsbach (Homerische Theologie, third edition, edited by G. Authenrieth, 1884, p. 
229) Homer always represented sensuality without lust and without prudery and never 
enticingly and seductively or with sensual excitement in mind; he was one of the most 
innocent poets of all ages and even in describing sexual scenes, he never used a word 
which exceeded artistic requirements. This is yet another example of how the Indo- 
European linked freedom with dignity. 

In Europe and North America, individuals who were still capable of their own religiosity 
— of which the Commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson, the distinguished third 
President of the United States of America, is an example — have been replaced by 
masses who by religiosity only understand an appendage to a confession useful for 
personal advancement. There is no possible hope, under these circumstances, that the 
great spiritual and religious heights which were reached by the Indo-Europeans living 
between Europe and India at various times from the Bronze Age up to the nineteenth 
century will ever be matched again. For a world culture such as progressives seek to 
construct, an elevation of the spirit above and beyond the entertainment needs of the 
masses — above Jazz and Negro rhythm — is no longer to be hoped for, since what 
Europeans and North Americans have to offer today to the "undeveloped" peoples (who, 
however, should have been able to utilise the 10,000 to 20,000 years which have passed 
since the end of the Old Stone Age for their own development), is nothing more than the 
spiritually vacuous "culture" of a welfare state governed by a hundred soulless 
authorities. In such societies the Press, literature, radio, television and films and other 
media provide the masses with a controlled "tensioning" and "de-tensioning" by 
alternately playing up this or that belief or unbelief. With the further extinction of 


families capable of spiritual independence, and the further disappearance of talents, 
particularly amongst the peoples of North America and Europe capable of spiritual 
leadership, no alternative to the disappearance of the last remaining elements of the Indo- 
European peoples and their culture can be expected. 

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), one of the founders of the free state of Virginia, author of 
the Declaration of Independence (1776), Governor of Virginia, ambassador in Paris, 
Foreign Minister under George Washington, and from 1801 to 1809 President of the 
United States, sought to see his people as a nation of Teutonic yeomen and distrusted 

trade and the upcoming industry of the cities, which he regarded as foes of freedom. 
Jefferson sought to protect the freedom and dignity of the individual man from the state, 
to which he therefore wished to allow only a minimum of power. To preserve this farmer 
aristocracy enjoying Indo-European freedom 43 he sought to avoid a centralised state in 
favour of a loose federation or association of the former English colonies. But after the 
agricultural era, the urbanisation and industrialisation of the industrial era brought into 
being the city masses whose need for security became greater than their real or pretended 
urge to freedom. Security against (in the Indo-European sense) destiny — cowardly 
security against all difficult situations of life — can only be achieved in a state based 
upon bureaucracy, a state which is therefore, of necessity, inhuman. The excessive 
number of patronising departments and repressive laws, as well as the large number of 
officials in dependent positions, gradually stifles the freedom of any individuals still 
capable of a dignified and courageous conduct of life. (Tacitus: Annals, XXXVII: 
corruptissima in re publica plurimae leges.) 

In the winter of 1791-92, Wilhelm von Humboldt, the friend of Schiller, and like Schiller 
one of the last great Indo-Europeans, wrote a book: Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen 
der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen (An attempt to determine the limits of the 
effectiveness of the State). In this work he sought to safeguard the humanitas and 
dignitas, the dignity of man, from patronisation by governmental welfare states. Yet with 
the twentieth century, more and more countries, including the once so free English, and 
now in their wake, North America, have become "socialised", bureaucratic welfare states, 
whose masses, encumbered by thousands of officials and organisations, have begun to 
forget freedom and dignity through the de-tensioning offered them. With the loss of 
freedom and dignity in political and social life, how is the preservation of traditional 
spiritual values possible? 

One of the first to recognise that the era of the free individual, capable of self- 
determination, was coming to an end, and that with the displacement of this free, self- 
reliant man, human dignity would vanish from public life, was the Norman Count Alexis 
de Tocqueville (1805-1859), the friend of Count Arthur Gobineau (1816-1882). His work 
L'Ancien Regime et la Revolution (7th edition, 1866) and the Souvenirs de Alexis de 
Tocqueville (1893), which were not published until thirty-four years after the death of the 
author, were only heeded in Germany when it was too late to save the freedom of the 
individual; de Tocqueville studied the nature of the democracies as displayed in their land 
of origin, in North America, and afterwards wrote his work De la Democratie en 
Amerique (1835), a warm-hearted and richly informative description of the North 
American free state, in which he also warned of the dangers facing democracies which 
fell under the domination of the spirit of the masses. He feared that the rise of an era of 
the masses, with state capitalism and state-controlled enterprise, would pervert the 
democracies into repressing the freedom of the individual man of dignity — to him the 
highest human good — so that democracy would lead to a suppression of freedom in the 
Indo-European sense, the freedom still demanded by Jefferson and by Wilhelm von 

The last men who — without investigating its origins — defended Indo-European 
freedom, namely the democracy of the free and mutually-equal land-owning family 
fathers, were the English philosophers John Stuart Mill (Michael St. John Packe: The Life 
of John Stuart Mill, 1954, pp. 488 et seq.) and Herbert Spencer. J. S. Mill wrote a book 
On Liberty in 1859. With almost incomprehensible far-sightedness Mill recognised the 
threat to the dignity and freedom of independent and self-reliant individual thinking men 
which was embodied in the "freedom" of the masses gathering in the cities. Mill feared 
the tyranny of the majorities in the popular assemblies, the repression of those capable of 
judgment by the mass of alternating public opinions. He feared the Chinese ideal of the 
sameness of all men and saw — like Goethe in his tragedy Die natiirliche Tochter (I, 5) 
— that all contemporary political trends were aiming to reshape the era by raising the 
depths, and debasing the heights. When men had been made "equal" by law, every 
deviation from this uniformity would be condemned as wicked, immoral, monstrous and 
unnatural (John Stuart Mill: Die Freiheit, 1859, translated into German by Elsa 
Wentscher, Philosophische Bibliothek, Vol. CCII, 1928, pp. 7, 100 et seq.). Hence in the 
year 1859, when England was still free, that very conformity was already predicted 
against which even the newspaper writers and literateurs of unhindered mass circulation 
today complain. 

To John Stuart Mill the freedom of the individual was the highest good. He started with 
the viewpoint of Adam Smith and David Ricardo and inclined to socialism, but feared 
that the abuse of freedom by parties and majorities would lead to the rule of the masses, 
to the end of competition and to the abolition of individual possessions, which would 
favour the stupid and lazy, but rob the clever and industrious. For this reason Mill also 
advocated Malthusianism and family planning, because families with many children 
whom they were economically incapable of supporting would endanger the state. 

Herbert Spencer found the highest degree of freedom within the state in England in the 
middle nineteenth century, the highest degree of freedom for men of independent 
judgment and independent conscience. But when he wrote his Principles of Sociology in 
1896, he recognized that this freedom was already threatened by socialism. Socialism he 
said, would appear in every industrial society and would repress every freedom; 
socialism itself would become only another form of subjection, simply another form of 
the bureaucratic regime, and thus it would become the greatest misfortune that the world 
had ever experienced; no one might ever again do what he pleased, each would have to 
do what he was ordered to do. A total and absolute loss of freedom would result. Herbert 
Spencer might have added that only a minority of men capable of independent thought 
would regret the loss of freedom in a bureaucratic, patronising state, while the solid 
majority (Ibsen: An Enemy of the People) would prefer state care to freedom, being 
unable to understand the freedom of Jefferson or Wilhelm von Humboldt, or Mill or 
Spencer (Herbert Spencer: Principles of Sociology, Vol. Ill, 1897, pp. 585, 595). 

In two contributions to his Essays (Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. II, 
1883, pp. 48, 56, 66, 94, 100, 104; Vol. Ill, 1878, pp. 181, 186) Herbert Spencer the 
Liberal summarised how socialism — when it finally penetrated all parties — would 
repress the freedom of the individual to voice independent judgment; through a flood of 

laws there would arise, supported by the blind faith of the socialist masses in enactments, 
and in government machinery, a stupid and ponderous bureaucratic state; the state would 
discourage its citizens from helping themselves, and no one would be permitted to 
withdraw from the national institutions, as they may from private ones, when they broke 
down or became too costly; the blind belief in officialdom, above all in the Fascist and 
National Socialist form, has given rise, as Spencer feared, to a blind faith in government, 
to a political fetichism. But wherever socialist governments have been able to rule 
uncontested for decades, officialdom, state control and state fetichism have set in, and 
with them a further repression of the freedom of the individual, of that Indo-European 
and above all Teutonic freedom emanating from the spirit of the land-owning family 
heads, equal among one another, with which Spencer and the liberals of his day were 
concerned — even though they did not realise that the roots of this freedom were 
historically Indo-European. 

One may describe the Teutons as born democrats, if by democracy one understands the 
self-conscious freedom and equality of rural yeomen. Democracy of this kind will always 
follow the command, found in the Edda (Grogaldr, VI, Der Zaubergesang der Groa, 
Edda, Vol. II, 1920, p. 178): "Lead thyself!" This freedom, a dignified freedom found 
only in the man capable of self-determination, was maintained in Iceland, whence 
Norwegian freeholders removed themselves to avoid forcible conversion to Christianity 
at the hands of the newly-converted Norwegian kings, with such resolution, that the 
present day observer must doubt whether the Icelandic free state could in general be 
called a state. 

Likewise Eduard Meyer (Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. I, 2, 1909, p. 777) has alluded to 
the individualism and self-determination which characterises the Indo-Europeans, to the 
individuality of the self-determining man, hostile to every kind of leadership, even to the 
extent of frequently proving a danger to his own nation or state. Bismarck himself bore 
witness to this individuality when he said that he was less concerned with giving 
commands than with punishing disobedience. Such an outlook is expressed in the motto, 
valid earlier in Germany, Selbst ist der Mann — Rely on yourself — and this outlook 
refuses charity from every other, even from the state. It corresponds to a truly Indo- 
European remark of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus {Observations, III, 5): 
"You shall stand upright, and not be supported by others!" In the Agamemnon (755) of 
Aeschylus, the king of the Hellenic army, first among equals, expresses the view that he 
has his own convictions, apart from those of his people. With Sophocles (Aias, 481) the 
Chorus confirms to Aias, who has freely chosen death, that he never spoke a word which 
did not proceed directly from his own nature. 

But such attitudes have tended to disappear lately amongst Indo-European speaking 
peoples — corresponding to the disappearance of men capable of independent thought 
and opinion, the truly free-born. Recently, through an accumulation of men incapable of 
independent thought, city masses have come into existence which wish to be led: it is no 
longer "lead yourself — yourself!" but "Leader, command and we will follow!" In such 
periods true Indo-European freedom vanishes. Marcus Tullius Cicero (de officio, I, 1 12- 
113), imbued with the traditional freedom of an aristocratic republic and acquainted 

through Panaetius with the Hellenic thinkers' doctrines of freedom, still risked praising 
Julius Caesar's dead opponent Cato Uticensis, during the former's dictatorship. After the 
battle of Thapsos, many Romans accepted the sole rule of a conquering leader of the city 
masses (consisting predominantly of freedmen), the dictator perpetuus, Julius Caesar. 
Not, however, Cato Uticensis, one of the last freeborn men of the aristocratic Roman 
republic: Cato's love of freedom taught him to choose death rather than live under 

The historical work of Tacitus, which has already been mentioned above, reveals that 
Indo-European freedom (libertas) is only possible in a society of individuals capable of 
independent judgment, who rely on their own resources and who do not need to be 
supported. Herbert Spencer had already seen, towards the end of the nineteenth century, 
that such freedom would no longer be practicable in industrial societies. 

Indo-European spiritual freedom and human dignity have been represented with the 
utmost beauty by the classical art of the Hellenes and this spirit speaks with irrepressible 
vigour and clarity from the sculptures which represent Hellenic thinkers and poets (K. 
Schefeld: Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, 1943) — sculptures 
which could not have been created had not the artists themselves been conscious of this 
freedom and dignity. A great part of the present day, highly-praised "art of the free 
West", expresses in word and image a disgust which is perhaps pardonable — with the 
genus Man, often even a disgust with the "artist" himself, and it is obvious that as such, it 
no longer belongs to the spirit of the West, first expressed to perfection by the Hellenes. 
The present day West, insofar as it is represented by "famous artists", is no longer 
capable of grasping the totality of the world phenomenon or of the human picture. It is 
content to produce distorted fragments which are then regarded with astonishment by the 
Press as assertions about "essentials". Writers, painters, sculptors and designers depict — 
after their own image creatures which fall far short of the nobility of man, ranking 
culturally with lemurs — "semi-natures" pieced together from ligaments, sinews and 
bones (Goethe: Faust, II, Act 5, Great Courtyard of Palace), "semi-natures" whose 
microcephaly or even headlessness, seem to symbolise the rejection of reason, logos, 
ratio by the "artists" of the present era. As for present day lyrics, Hugo Friedrich (Die 
Struktur der modernen Lyrik, 1961) has made a most penetrating anaylsis of them from 
Baudelaire to the present day and delineates a downward trend in lyricism which reflects 
the decline of the West, even though he does not attempt to evaluate the artistic level of 
modern lyricism or discuss the question whether it may in fact still be regarded as 

The decline of human dignity and freedom through socialism, which would demand as 
much state power as possible was also feared by Friedrich Nietzsche, who, like Jefferson 
and Wilhelm von Humboldt, recommended as little of the State as possible, and finally 
called the state the coldest of all cold monsters (Also sprach Zarathustra: Von neuen 
Gotzeri). Today such an opinion would incur disciplinary action against its author — not 
only in eastern European states. Socialism, according to Nietzsche (Taschenausgabe, Bd. 
Ill, pp. 350-351), coveted "a fullness of state power such as only despotism had enjoyed 
indeed it surpassed all the past because it strove for the formal annihilation of the 

individual." From a World State or a World Republic, which today is regarded by 
"progressive" believers as the desired goal of humanity, Nietzsche expected nothing other 
than the final disappearance of all remnants of freedom and human dignity: "Once the 
earth is brought under all-embracing economic control, then mankind will find it has been 
reduced to machinery in its service, as a monstrous clockwork system of ever smaller, 
more finely adjusted wheels." (Nietzsches gesammelte Werke, Musarionausgabe, Bd. 
XIX, 1962, p. 266; cf. also Charles Andler: Nietzsche, Sa Vie et sa Pensee, Vol. Ill, 1958, 
pp. 201 et seq.). 

The decline of freedom and human dignity under socialism was also foretold by Gustave 
Le Bon in his books Psychologie des Foules (1895) and Les Lois psychologiques de 
revolution des Peuples (1894). Le Bon was afraid that the masses would readily accept 
every subjection under strong-willed leaders, and dissolve the age-old cultures of Europe, 
and that in their delusion that freedom and equality could be achieved by ever-increasing 
legislation, they would legally whittle it away, especially as they regarded freedom as an 
external lack of restraint. From Caesarism, the despotism of leaders, the masses expected 
not so much freedom, which they were not really striving after, as equal subjection for 
all. The Socialism of our time (1895) would have the effect of state absolutism, especially 
as the socialism of the masses would appear as a new religion and would compel 
uniformity. Later the state would become almighty God. The race soul of the peoples 
represents their cultural condition; the mass soul of the population represents a condition 
of barbarism and of decline. 

Theobald Ziegler, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Strasburg, stated in his 
work Die Soziale Frage (1891), a study of the socialist ideas of his time, that the equal 
subjection of everyone under state patronage, was a predominantly German tendency. 
Ernst Troeltsch, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Berlin (Das 19. 
Jahrhundert, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. IV, p. 640), wrote in 1925, that "the pressure of 
universal state power weighed ever-increasingly on the people". This was and is without 
doubt also true for those peoples who live in democracies, for, as Eduard Schwartz, the 
historian (Charakterkopfe der Antike, 1943), has stated, the civic courage of personal 
opinion, the courage of independent judgment, was neither a self-evident nor a 
superfluous virtue in democracies. The freedom of independently thinking men becomes 
more and more restricted in the era of the legally "liberated" masses, departmental orders 
and public opinion. 

Into what lack of dignity and lack of freedom, into what abysses of official, spiritual and 
moral life, Socialist governments can lead a once noble and free people, is illustrated by 
the outstanding example of modern Sweden. Witness of this is the Swedish socialist Tage 
Lindbom, director of the Stockholm Archives for the History of the Working Class 
Movement, a most competent expert in his book Sancho Panzas Vdderkvarnar (1963). 

The abuse of the freedom of rural communities by hybrid city masses was responsible for 
decay in Hellas as well as in Rome. For Plato (Theaitetos, 172-173), freedom was the 
dignified independence of the noble man. In his work The State (Politeia, VIII, 550, 557- 
558, 562-564), he criticised freedom as a slogan for city masses; an excess of such 

freedom would hand over the state as well as the individual to an excess of slavery. To a 
man of dignified freedom the guiding factor is merely truth (Plato: Theaitetos, 172-173), 
which is always simple; to the unworthy man, the guiding factor in freedom is gossip, 
slyness, flattery and persuasion by means of confused and false proofs. 

In this way freedom vanished towards the end of the aristocratic Roman republic, with 
the extinction of the freeborn (ingenui); under the Emperors the freedom of the freedman 
(liberti), which was nothing less than self-restraint, started in the capital and spread to all 
the cities of the Empire, a freedom from which the last freeborn Romans could only 
withdraw, exchanging their earlier tradition of participating in state life for one of 
isolation. The wiseman — Cicero once wrote (de legibus, I, 61) — holds that what the 
masses praise so highly is worth nothing. Horace (Carmina, I, 1; 2, 16, 39, 40), who had 
experienced the transition from the aristocratic republic into the Caesarism of the 
Emperors, favouring the masses, spoke of an evil-willed crowd (malignum volgus). The 
behaviour of the freedmen in flattering the Emperors has been described with contempt 
by Petronius, who originated from a family of the nobilitas, the official nobility, in his 
Cena Trimalchionis. In this satire one of the last freeborn Romans expresses his disgust, 
with the superior calm of a man who looks towards decline without hope. In the year 66, 
Petronius, hitherto popular at his court, was condemned to death by Nero. 

The literature of the "free West" celebrated and praised by the reviewers and critics of 
today's newspapers, would probably be regarded by Petronius as a literature of freedmen 
for freedmen. In particular it is just those authors who are most praised today who 
promote with boring repetition nothing less than the further decomposition of the spiritual 
and moral values of the Indo-European. The newspaper writers praise the "freedom" of 
these "artists" in contrast with the "aesthetic backwardness" of isolated doubters. To be 
regarded as aesthetically backward is also the admonition of Horace: "Nothing small and 
nothing in a low manner!" 

After the ending of colonial rule it must be feared that the populations of wide regions of 
the earth will behave as freedmen, all the more so as colonial rule has destroyed what 
remains of the ancient ethical and social orders of these populations; in other words, they 
will imitate large sections of the youth of "cultured peoples". 

After every constitutional alteration and every upheaval since the middle of the 
nineteenth century, the peoples of the west have lost more of the freedom of the 
individual originally peculiar to their nature, and have had to bear instead more 
subjection, more of "the insolence of office" (Shakespeare: Hamlet, III, 1). Since this 
process took place gradually, the loss of the freedom which was inherent in the spirit of 
Indo-European yeomen, the loss of that freedom which although weakened and distorted, 
was still effective in the political liberalism of the nineteenth century, has proceeded 
unnoticed, while calculating opportunists have readily learned how to exploit officialdom 
or have themselves obtained high appointment in government offices. As a result there 
has been a gradual but powerful growth of authoritarianism in both the state and political 
parties, and in the influence, exercised either openly or in secret of moneyed people 
behind them. 

The poet Paul Ernst (1866-1937), in his enthralling Jugenderinnerungen (completed in 
1929 and published in 1959), has described the transition of his homeland from a land of 
rural craftsmen to an industrial state accompanied by fearful losses in uprightness, 
solidarity and mutual regard and confidence between men — a transition bringing with it 
an increasing loss of freedom in which the younger men became more or less willingly 
entangled. The father of the poet was obliged even at the age of nine, to work in a mine in 
the Harz mountains as a "Pochjunge" with a weekly wage of 60 pfennigs. When twenty- 
two years old, he earned 2.40 marks per week; and from 1856, when he was in his 
twenty-third year, one Taler. The poet, his son, succumbed just as little as did his father 
to the blandishments of Marxism which appeared in his time; rather, he gave a warning of 
the universal subjection to which socialist states would be reduced as had John Stuart 
Mill and Herbert Spencer. The poet saw in Marxism a "path leading to a more terrible 
slavery than the world had ever known" (pp. 289-290). He expressed the view that today 
a man who wishes to avoid the embraces of such slavery, must so adapt his life that he 
must place himself as far as possible beyond contemporary society, and must remain 
completely isolated from contemporary influences. 

The solitude of the individual was rejected in Germany by mass-minded (Ochlocratic) 
National Socialism in favour of a Folk community of urban masses, which also revealed 
the end of the Indo-European era in Germany. But the person with understanding will 
realise, like Herbert Spencer, that the loss of the freedom of the individual is unavoidable 
in all industrial societies. 

It is unfortunately true that amongst the peoples of the west, the number of men who 
prefer freedom to a high standard of living has become very small, and that men who are 
naturally freeborn (eleutheros, ingenuus) and Paul Ernst was one, suffer from increasing 
patronisation. In his Jugenderinnerungen (Memories of Youth, p. 312) Paul Ernst wrote 
that his father had always been a free man despite his poverty, and his mother a dignified 
woman, as befitted the wife of such a man. 

There is a great need for men of the calibre of Paul Ernst, of the kind of human breed 
whose dying out is being hastened today, if the loss of freedom is to be noticed at all. 
Walter Muschg, Professor of Basle University, in an address on the occasion of the 
Schiller celebrations, entitled Schiller: The Tragedy of Freedom (1959), emphasised that 
freedom had "not only vanished under dictatorships, but also in the so-called free 
countries. Everywhere new power factors had formed which controlled the existence of 
men and had produced invisible forms of slavery, before which our liberal forefathers 
would have shuddered. . . . We are surrounded by Gessler hats, at which no one takes 
aim. Present day man no longer knows what freedom is and furthermore he no longer 
desires it. He wishes for comfort, for an effortless enjoyment of life at the price of 
bureaucratic control for which he willingly pays. The will to freedom has been succeeded 
by the longing for domination, for release from self determination. From this longing . . . 
arise both open and veiled forms of dictatorship." 

M. T. Vaerting, who went to North America, a land of apparent freedom, when the 
National Socialist state in Germany became more and more totalitarian to the extent, 

finally of mistrusting even the private sphere of individuals who were incapable of mass 
existence — eventually came to the conclusion, which she expounded in two books, 44 
that gradually all states in Europe and North America were following the example of 
Soviet Russia, and that they were on the road to the totalitarian mass state which can lead 
one way only, to a super state under which freedom and human dignity are oppressed. 

Thus she sees everywhere an increase in the power of the state which will bring about the 
decline of man. Such a decline effected through the increasing control of man by the 
State, will not be felt by the masses, who demand security, but will be completed through 
the further extinction of freeborn families, exactly as described and predicted by Walther 
Rathenau 45 in The Tragedy of the Aryan People, which Rathenau saw as the greatest 
tragedy of the whole of human history. However, this expiring race was, and is still, the 
race of Heraclitus and Sophocles, of Titus Lucretius Cams, of that same Cato Uticensis, 
who preferred death to life under the dictator perpetuus Julius Caesar; it was and is still 
the breed of Giordano Bruno, Thomas Jefferson and Wilhelm von Humboldt, a breed 
which through its inherited qualities is still capable of a brave, undaunted struggle for 
dignity and freedom. Selbst ist der Mann: Rely on yourself! 

Socrates once walked round the market in Athens, looking at the quantity of goods on 
display, the luxury articles indicative of the high standard of living of the Athenians — 
who were otherwise spiritually impoverished — and he turned to his friends and said: 
"How many things there are, which I can do without!" 

The products of the mass media of our age, which will soon be brought within reach of 
the remotest peoples on earth, at the cost of distorting and replacing their native cultures 
by the spiritually-destructive technology known as "world culture" will be renounced by 
the last true Indo-Europeans in just the same way as Socrates renounced the wares 
displayed for sale in the market place at Athens. 

But to Indo-European man himself, the historic creator of cultures from Benares to 
Reykjavik, we may truly apply the words of Hamlet: 

"We shall not look upon his like again!" 




Rassenkunde Europas, 1929. 

Die Nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens, 1934. 
Herkunft und Rassengeschichte der Germanen, 1935. 
Lebensgeschichte des hellenischen Volkes, 1956. 
Lebensgeschichte des romischen Volkes, 1957. 


Germanentum und Alteuropa, Germanisch-Romanische 
Monatsschrift, XXII, 1934, pp. 157 ff. 


Vorderasien, Nordafrika, Europa, Abriss der 
Vorgeschichte, 1957, pp. 60 ff. 
Deutschland in vor- und friihgeschichtlicher Zeit, 
Handbuch der Geschichte, Vol. I, 1957, Section I, pp. 41 ff. 


Origini Indoeuropee, 1961. 


Alt-arisches Jus gentium, 1889. 

Alt-arisches Jus civile, 1892-6. 

cf. Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, 1884. 


Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes, 1933. 
Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes, 1934. 


Die vergleichende Religions geschichte und das 
Indogermanen-problem, Germanen und Indogermanen: 
Festschrift fur Herman Hirt, edited by Helmut Arntz, Vol. 
I, 1936, pp. 177 ff. 
Glaubensgeschichte der Indogermanen, Part I, 1937. 


Die Gotter der Griechen, Kriegsvortrage der Universitat 
Bonn, No. 57, 1941. 


Les Dieux des Romains, 1942. 

Indogermanisches Bekenntnis, 1942. 


Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus , 1948. 
Les Dieux des Indo-Europeens a Rome, 1954. 
Deesses latines et mythes vediques, 1956. 
L'Ideologie tripartie des Indo-Europeens, 1958. 
Les Dieux des Germains, 1959. 


Romische Religions geschichte, 1951-53. 


Die Religionen Indiens, 1956. 


Germanische Religion, Religion in Geschichte und 
Gegenwart, Vol. II, 1928, Sp. 1041 ff. 


Die Germanen, Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, Vol. 
XII, 1929. 


Midgards Untergang, 1938. 

Deutsche Liter aturzeitung, Vol. XLIX, 1, 1928, Sp. 33 ff. 


Hessische Blatter fiir Volkskunde, Vol. XXVII, 1928, pp. 

217 ff. 


Kultur und Religion der Germanen, 1937. 

Die Gotter der Germanen, 1938. 

Eddan och dess Odestragik, 1938. 

Religionen der Griechen, Romer und Germanen, 1954. 

Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, 1956-7. 

De Godsdienst der Germanen, 1959. 


Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient 
Scandinavia, 1964. 


as 4 supra. 


Die Zoroastrische Religion, Religionsgeschichtliches 
Lesebuch, Vol. I, 1926. 


Zarathustra und seine Lehre, Universitas, XII, 1957, pp. 

267 ff. 

Die Religion Zarathustras nach den Quellen dargestellt, 


Von arischer Religion, Geistige Arbeit, I, 1934, No. 23, pp. 


Die Alten Arier: Von Art undAdel ihrer Gotter, 1935. 


Die Religionen des Alten Irans, Mitteilungen der 
Vorderasiatisch-agyptischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 34, 1938. 


Iranische Geisteswelt, 1961. 

Das Weltbild der Iraner, 1933. 


Griechische Religiostitdt von Homer bis Pindar und 
Aschylos, 1930, p. 113. 


Die Antike in der Geschichtsphilosophie, Die Welt als 
Geschichte, XVI, Vols. III-IV, 1958, pp. 175 ff. 


Lebensgeschichte des romischen Volkes, 1957, p. 307. 


Lebensgeschichte des hellenischen Volkes, 1956, pp. 157, 


Studies in Islamic Mysticism, 1921, pp. 162, 180-181, 184. 
A Literary History of the Arabs, 1930, pp. 383 ff., 393-394. 


Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. I, 2, 1909, pp. 385-386. 


Urkunden und Gestalten der Germanisch-Deutschen 
Glaubens geschichte, 1940. 


Gottfried Kellers Glaube, 1944. 


Die Gotter Griechenlands, 1947. 

Theophania: Der Geist der altgriechischen Religion, 1956. 


Shelley's Religion, 1936. 


Ragnarok, 1922. 


Sur lefond commun Indo-iranien des epopees de la Perse 

et de I'Inde, La Nouvelle Clio, Vol. VII, 1949-50, pp. 330 


Germanische und Indoiranische Eschatologie, Kairos, Vol. 

II, 1960, pp. 78-88. 


Les Dieux des Germains, 1959, pp. 85, 92, 103. 


Platon als Hiiter des Lebens, 1966. 


Arteigene Germanische Religion und Christentum, 1933, p. 


Die Christianisierung der Germanen, 1934, p. 20. 


A Life of Buddha, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XIX, 
1883, verse I, 52, p. 9, verse V, 1856, p. 270. 


Dialogues of Buddha, Sacred Books of the Buddhists, Vol. 
Ill, Part H, 1910, p. 36. 


Same series, Vol. IV, Part III, 1921, p. 138. 


Les Indo-Europeens, 1921, p. 221. 


Individuum und Kosmos in Shakespeares Werken, 

Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. LXIX, 1933, p. 25. 

cf. also Erik Therman, Eddan och dess Odestragik, 1938. 


Die Schicksalsidee im Altertum, Veroffentlichungen des 
Indogermanischen Seminars der Universitat Erlangen, Vol. 
II, 1926, pp. 45-70, 95-114. 


Die tragische Weltanschauung der hellenischen 
Hochkulter, Forschungen und Fortschritte, No. 14, 1934, 
pp. 177 ff. 


Germanischer Schicksalsglaube, 1934. 


Der Germanische Schicksalsglaube, 1939. 


Das Wort derAntike, 1962, pp. 334 ff. 


Die Christianisierung der Germanen, 1934, p. 20. 


The Varieties of Religious Experience, 1907, pp. 78 ff., 127 


Altgermanische Kultur, 1925, pp. 32-33. 


Die Nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens, 1934, 
pp. 26, 32, 111,232. 


Altgermanische Sittenlehre und Lebensweisheit, Hermann 
Nollau: Germanische Wiedererstehung, 1926, p. 161. 


Die Germanen, Chantepie de la Saussaye: Lehrbuch der 
Religionsgeschichte, Vol. II, 1925, p. 563. 


Die Krisis und Wende des Christlichen Geistes, 1932, pp. 
405 ff. 


Rassenkunde des judischen Volkes, 1930, pp. 26 ff. 

Rasse und Seele, 1940, p. 146. 


Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes, 1934, pp. 236 ff. 
Rassenkunde Europas, 1929, pp. 82 ff. 


Die vergleichende Religionsgeschichte, 1936, p. 101 — see 
note 3 supra. 


Die Weltanschauungen des indogermanischen Asiens, 
Veroffentlichungen des indogermanischen Seminars der 
Universitat Erlangen, Vol. I, 1924, pp. 100 et seq. 
Chantepie de la Saussaye, 1925, pp. 18-19 — see note 24 


in Johannes Edvard Lehmann: Illustrerad 
Religionshistoria, 1924, pp. 488-89. 
See note 4 supra. 


See note 4 supra. 


To d und Unsterblichkeit im Weltbild Indogermanischer 
Denker, 1942. 


Les Indo-Europeens, 1921, pp. 228 ff. 


Studien zur indogermanischen Wortkunde und 
Religionsgeschichte, Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der 
Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, 
phil.-hist. Klasse, Vol. XCVIII, No. 5, 1952, pp. 35 ff., 55 


Die Uberlieferungen vom Gotte Balder, 1920. 


Balder, Zeitschrift fiir Deutsches Altertum, Vol. LXI, 1924, 
pp. 93 ff. 


Sterbende und auferstehende Gotter, 1923. 


Die Nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens, 1934, 
pp. 40, 120. 


Rassenkunde des jiidischen Volkes, 1930, pp. 68 ff. 

Rasse und Seele, p. 1 17. 


Die Lehre der Upanischaden, 1915, pp. 39 ff., 44 ff. 

Die Philosophie der Upanischaden, 1919. 


Aglaophamus, Vol. I, 1828, p. 412. 


Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Vol. I, 1951, pp. 113 ff., 
129 ff., 217 ff. 


Das System des Vedanta, 1883. 

Der Stufenweg zum Gottlichen, 1948. 


Deutscher Gottglaube von der Deutschen Mystik bis zur 
Gegenwart, 1934, pp. 19 ff. 
Wirklichkeitsreligion, 1933. 


Die Entwicklung des Naturgefiihls bei den Griechen und 
Romern, 1882. 

Die Entwicklung des Naturgefiihls im Mittelalter und in der 
Neuzeit, 1922. 


Das Naturgefuhl in der homerischen Dichtung, Das 
humanistische Gymnasium, 45, 1934, pp. 119 ff. 


Die Landschaft in der nordischen Kunst, 1922. 


Der Himmelsvater, Forschungen und Fortschritte, Year 19, 
1943, Sp. 94 ff. 


Origini Indoeuropee, 1962, pp. 251-52. 


Die antike Humanitdt, 1897. 
Humanitas, Realencyklopadie der klassischen 
Altertumswissenschaften, Supplement-Band V, 1931, Sp. 
282 ff. 


Humanitas, Fiihreradel durch Sippenpflege, 1941, pp. 158 


Griechische Religiositdt vom Zeitalter des Perikles bis auf 
Aristoteles, 1930, p. 85. 


The Conquest of Happiness, 1953, p. 113. 

Der Begabungsschwund in Europa, 1959. 


Freiheit und Gebundenheit im Germanischen Staat, Recht 
und Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart, No. 90, 1933. 


Europa und Amerika: Der Entwicklungsweg des Staates 

zum Uberstaat, 1951. 

Machtzuwachs des Staates — Untergang des Menschen, 



Walther Rathenau, 1928, p. 43. 







Ackermann, H. 





Amalric of Bena 




Arberry, P. A. J. 



Arndt, E. M. 


Asas; see Aesir 



Augustine, Bishop of Hippo 

Augustus (Octavianus) 

Aurelius, Marcus 




Baetke, W. 
Beckmann, F. 
Bhagavad Gita 
Bohme, J. 
Brahmin system 
Bronze Age 
Bruckner, A. 
Bruno, G. 
Biichner, K. 

Cato Uticensis 

Chrysostom; see Dion 
Clauss, L. F. 
Clemen, C. 
Collignon, M. 
Cyrus (Kurash) 
Cyrus II 
Cyrus the Great 




David of Dinant 

Davidson, H. R. E. 


Derolez, R. L. M. 

Deussen, P. 

Devoto, G 

de Vries, J. 

Dion of Prusa 


Eckhart, Meister 
Edda, The 
Emerson, R. W. 
Eriugena, Scotus 
Ernst, P. 


Fischer, K. 
Frank, S. 

Frederick the Great 
Frenssen, G. 
Friedrich, H. 

Drews, A. 


Dumezil, G. 

Duns Scotus 




Geldner, K. F. 

Gobineau, Count de 


Gohlke, P. 

Giintert, H. 





Hartmann, H. 

Hauer, W. 

Hauschild, R. 



Heidenreich, R. 

Heine-Geldern, R. von 


Helm, K. 




Hertl, J. 

Heusler, A. 



Hommel, H. 


Hugo of St. Victor 

Humboldt, W. von 








James, W. 

Jefferies, R. 
Jefferson, T. 
Julian, Emperor 
Julius Caesar 





Keller, G. 

Khshayarsha (Xerxes) 

Kierkegaard, S. 

Klages, L. 

Kleanthes of Assos 

Knoche, U. 

Korff, H. A. 

Krause, W. 


Lange, F. A. 
Langlotz, E. 
Le Bon, G. 
Leist, B. W. 

Lindbom, T. 
Lommel, H. 
Lorrain, C. 




Ludwig the Pious 
Lullies, R. 

lhn, H. 



Macrodius, A. T. 




Namantianus, C. R. 


Mandel, H. 

Negelein, J. von 

Oldenberg, H. 

Mann, T. 

Nehru, J. 

Olmstead, A. T. 

Marcellinus, A. 




Nestle, W. 

Orphic mysteries 

Mazdaism, Ahura 

Neumann, E. 

Otto, R. 

Mensching, G. 

Nicholson, R. A. 

Otto, W. F. 

Meyer, E. 

Nietzsche, F. 

Meyer, K. H. 

Nikolaus von Kues 


Nilson, P. 

Mill, J. S. 



Nyberg, H. S. 



Moretti, G. 








Spencer, H. 






Rathenau, W. 

Schefeld, K. 

Spranger, E. 





Pascal, B. 

Regenbogen, 0. 

Schiller, F. 

Stifter, A. 

Paul the Apostle 

Ricardo, D. 






Stone Age 


Rig Veda 

Schroder, F. R. 



Robinson, T. H. 

Schultz, W. 

Strzygowski, J. 



Schumacher, K. 



Rowley, H. H. 

Schwartz, E. 

Swinburne, A. 


Riickert, H. 

Sehrt, E. T. 

Symmachus, Q 

Pohlenz, M. 

Serveto, M. 



Press, the 



Siddhartha the 
Silesius, A. 
Sjostedt, M. 
Smith, A. 







Therman, E. 

Thieme, P. 

Tocqueville, Count A. de 

Troeltsch, E. 

Tryggveson, King Olav of Norway 

Turner, W. 



Vaerting, M. T. 







Vendryes, J. 


Verbeke, G. 



Von Platen 

Voss, H. 


Waddell, L. A. 

Walzel, O. 

Washington, G. 

Weigel, V. 

Widengren, G. 


Wodin, Wodan, Wuotan; see Odin 

World State 



Xerxes; see Khshayarsha 

Zarathustra, Spitama 
Zeus; see Jupiter 
Ziegler, T.